UKRI strategy
tags: [ ]I have had a quick read of the new UKRI strategy 2022 to 2027 and decided to jot down a few overarching impressions I got from it. The major object of this exercise was to force myself to crystallise a few opinions from the document - if it is by any chance useful or interesting to anyone else, that’s a bonus.
To be fair to the docuemnt, its an easy enough read on the whole. There is an abundance of flowery language and possibly a bit too much fluff (‘sieze this historical moment’, ‘global science superpower’), but there do seem to be some clear and considered objectives in there. There are not too many typos (fewer than in here most likely), and only one real howler that I spotted (pg 27/28 if anyone is interested).
Of course there is nothing concrete in this document, but my guess is that this acts as a signpost to the various councils who comprise UKRI and they will then enact the tangiable changes they see necessary to secure the maximum cut from the UKRI funding pie possible.
REF is changing: Teams will be valued over individuals
There is quite a lot of talk about the dual support system for universities and how this balance must be continually calibrated. Dual funding means money is allocated to projects directly from research councils and to longer term investment by way of assessment through the Research Excellence Framework (REF). And this is interesting, because the document directly mentions the REF and talks of re-defining excellence to ‘escape […] excessive focus on the performance of individuals to harness the power of diverse collaborative teams’. If the REF framework is built in future to reflect team work more than individuals, this could be quite a change for how departments and institutions are ranked.
Expect to see more from Innovate UK
The core measureable outcome that the strategy aims towards is the figure of 2.4% intensity in R&D by 2027. I have to admit I am not quite sure what intensity means here, but what is clear is that the money put into R&D from public funds is expected to attract more than double the same amount from the private sector. A buzz-phrase that is repeated enough to convince me that it might actually have some meaning, is ‘closing the gap between research and innovation’. Essentially ensuring quicker commercialisation of research outputs. Specific mention is made of Knowledge Transfer Networks (KTN) and Catapults. One of the six objectives (objective 4) focuses heavily on promotoing interaction between Innovate and the other research councils.
Multi and interdiscipinariy could be more than just buzz words
Combining disciplies is often touted as a magic bullet to somehow unlocking latent potential that resutls in something greater than the sum of the parts, however as far as I can see research council structure has generally resulted in less mobility between disciplines, rather than more. One of the main reasons for forming UKRI was ostensibly to encourage interaction between the constituent councils, so perhaps there should be no surprise that they are making a big play of interdisciplinarity in their strategy. Insofar as such a document can be concrete, there are some quite strong assertions about ‘incentivising diverse, flexible careers’, ‘enhance connections across research and innovation’ (see the Innovate point above), ‘champion [a] research and innovation funding environment that […] encourages diversity of ideas across all disciplines’, ‘remove barriers to multi and inter-disciplinary working’, ‘support and empower multi- and inter-disciplinary networks’ and so on; priority 3.2 is particularly stron on pledges in this area.
AI and Healthcare are centre-stage
There are a number of sectors that are singled out as the sectors or subjects where investment is likely to focus, these include
- life sciences
- space
- green energy
- AI
- fintech
- the creative industries
and later on
- advanced materials and manufacturing
- AI, digital and advanced computing
- bioinformatics and genomics
- engineering biology
- electronics, photonics and quantum technologies
- energy environmental and climate technologies
- robotoics and smart machines
But if I had to pick out a few priority areas that are mentioned more than most, they would be health and life sciences (building on the back of vaccine and pandemic related efforts) and AI (in its many guises).
The traditional academic career is no longer the only option
At several points the document states the need to break away from the traditional academic career. There is mention of fellowship schemes that ‘support createive thinkers who may not fit the typical researcher profile’. There is also praise for the Royal Society’s Resume of Researchers and an adoption of a new narritave CV format R4RI - more details on the format are best found on the RS website. It’s an interesting approach and there is a lot to be said for trying to draw in more diverse ranges of experience. Howvever, it is likely to create quite an amount of work for applicants, and for those involved in panels or hiring committees it is significantly harder to parse than the traditional CV - I think the jury is still out on this one.
Open Science and Data Will Be Prioritised (practice and infrastructre)
A large part of priority 1.3 (shift research culture to support, rahter than hinder, talented people and teams to pursue their ideas) focuses on how to make research culture more open. There will be much more emphasis on assessing open research culture in organisations and also a new body UKCORI to promote integrity in research. It is also great to see specific mention of data infrastructures on an equal footing with research and innovation infrastructures. Too often the data and software is an afterthought when building new scientific faciltites, but clearly UKRI has an ambition to put data on a much firmer footing.
Will facilities funding models change?
This is a small asisde - but there is an interesting comment about how the dual support model works for univeristies balancing stability agaist agility, followed by saying that ‘a similar balance is needed for other publically funded reasearch and innovation organisations’. I am not sure exactly what these other organisations are, but possibly this could mean that there is more responsive project based funding for national facilties and less core infrastructure funding, this would be a model more like the US national laboratories. But then again, this may not mean that, just a thought!