UKRI funding shake-up ‘requires shift from inputs to outcomes’

Attempts to target UK research investment to better deliver for national priorities must be accompanied by “a more purposeful, data-driven and outcomes-focused approach”, according to a new report.

As UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) carried out the biggest shake-up to its funding streams since its inception, impact specialists at UCL, Sarah Chaytor and Grace Gottlieb, argued more needs to be done to assess the current capabilities of the research and development (R&D) system.

The funder has been given a long-term spending settlement, with its budget set to rise to £10 billion by the end of the decade. But leaders and ministers have been clear that this comes with an expectation that it pivots to fund more impactful research aligned to government “missions”. Key funding streams are currently paused during a “period of transition”.

To achieve the government’s aims, a paper published by the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) on 19 February argues there is a need for a “shift in focus from inputs to outcomes, backed by richer, more integrated data on the UK’s research and innovation system”.

This would, authors argue, allow for the identification of particular “leverage points” where small, targeted investments could deliver disproportionately large impacts.

“One can imagine relevant data about the research system could be combined with key criteria and metrics to guide R&D investment decisions that provide the greatest return in terms of advancing government or sector ambitions,” the paper says.

“This could also help to inform a better whole-system analysis of the characteristics and capabilities of the R&D ecosystem and of the outcomes of public investment.”

There is also a need to address criticism identified by a report from the National Audit Office that there is no single guiding framework for what public investment in R&D is designed to achieve, the report says.

“Government departments expect UKRI to support the delivery of an extensive range of objectives…These are not consolidated or ranked, meaning that the government does not currently have an overall picture of what it is asking UKRI to do.”

“Flows between inputs (investment) and outputs and outcomes of the research system are often indirect, unintuitive or unexpected,” it adds.

The paper also argues for a “systems approach” which it says “is essential to understanding the interdependencies between universities, industry, government and regional ecosystems”.

The authors say that purposeful investment in research needs to be underpinned by four characteristics: sustainable resources, a broad base, cross-disciplinary working and societal engagement.

On the last point, the report says that polling which showed only 41 per cent of people feel R&D is connected to their lives was a “striking indictment of the failure to ensure the UK’s research base feels relevant to society at large and that public investment in R&D is valued by the public, who fund it”.

Hepi’s director Nick Hillman said that the “benefits of the billions of pounds of public investment in research are not always fully clear to the public. This can put the money and how it is used at risk.”

“We are at a critical moment that could affect future investment in research. Yet when the ecosystem fires on all cylinders, the benefits of research investment are recognised, felt and supported across the whole UK.”

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com