Looking back at my predictions from 12 months ago, I am tempted to deploy Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr’s famous epigram, “the more things change, the more they stay the same”, at the top of this article.
That is, for all the political chaos and tumult of 2022—or perhaps because of it—many of its events-in-waiting never actually happened. So 2023 should bring some certainty and calm. A lot of reviews and promises will finally bear fruit, and we’ll have a clearer indication of the road ahead. Of course, I said that last year, and to a certain extent the year before. But this year I’m convinced I’m right. So here are, I very much hope, some waymarks for 2023.
We’ll know what the future Research Excellence Framework (REF) will look like.
After the publication of REF2021 in May, the government commissioned the Future Research Assessment Programme, or Frap (no sniggering at the back). Among its nine ‘open questions’ were whether the current objectives of the REF were fit for purpose, how bureaucracy could be reduced, the use of new technologies, and what could be learned from global practice in assessing research. We’ve had some early indications of the outcome of Frap around the use of AI and machine learning, and a warning from the authors of Harnessing the Metric Tide to… well… be cautious in any assessment using metrics. The final outcome and recommendations are due in late spring.
We’ll know the future direction of Research England.
With its new executive chair in place, Research England can now prepare and publish its delivery plan. It’s the last part of UK Research and Innovation to do so, and I’m not expecting any surprises. Jessica Corner’s pitch for the job, published by the Science and Technology Committee in July 2022, gave an early indication of her priorities: mission-driven, interdisciplinary research, diversity and inclusivity, and more of a role for innovation and public engagement. All unsurprising.
Innovation is clearly a passion for her (it’s mentioned several times in her pitch), and her announcement of the latest round from the Expanding Excellence in England (E3) Fund is a statement of intent: she wants to support research that makes a difference. She nails her colours to the levelling-up mast, which brings me to…
We’ll see more funding and concrete action around levelling up.
Liz Truss seemed lukewarm on her predecessor’s centrepiece policy. However, the return of Michael Gove as the levelling-up secretary suggests that Rishi Sunak still believes it has legs. The report from Labour’s Commission on the UK’s Future just over a month ago shows that the opposition is equally keen to promote localism, so levelling up—in whatever form—will be here to stay.
The publication of the levelling-up white paper in February gave us a hazy idea of what the government had in mind, but there’s been little action or funding since then. I believe this will change in 2023. All the research councils’ delivery plans mention support for place, so expect significant funding—or at least a demand for universities to show that they’re taking it seriously.
We’ll have a better idea of support for international engagement.
Every year I promise some certainty around the UK’s association with Horizon Europe. Every year I’m disappointed. I really believe this is the year I’ll get it right. We can’t continue to have piecemeal patch-ups and promises. Researchers need to know whether we will have full access to Horizon Europe or not. If not, the government’s ‘plan B’, announced in July last year, will kick in, and we should know more about it following the budget in March. In the meantime, a somewhat lacklustre and under-funded international scheme was announced at the end of last year—and it ain’t no Horizon Europe. It offered a relatively small (though, of course, welcome) £119 million, and some openly political strategic overtures in cosying up to “R&D powers like Japan”. Still, the International Science Partnerships Fund (ISPF) does at least show the government’s research focus turning outwards.
We’ll have two new funds on the block.
Speaking of new funding, this might be the year we finally see Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria) take off (again, this is something I predicted for 2022). I can’t help feeling that Aria’s moment has been and gone. The moon has well and truly been shot. The policy paper setting out Aria’s principles is almost two years old now. Progress has been achingly slow, which puts paid to the idea of boldness, braveness, unfussy, unbureaucratic action.
Ilan Gur and Matt Clifford were appointed as CEO and chair of Aria in August, so 2023 will, I hope, see the first flowering of this new funder. Meanwhile, the research council delivery plans were all excitedly trumpeting a new interdisciplinary fund. I know, I know: funders have been talking about the importance of interdisciplinarity for most of the two decades I’ve been in research management, but having a dedicated scheme shows a serious commitment, and it will be interesting to see if it manages to work as a philosopher’s stone to convert aspirations to actuality.
We’ll see an overhaul of UKRI and its way of working.
UKRI is creaking. It’s being asked to do more and more with less and less. The Grant and Tickell Reviews recognised the problems in the system, from UKRI’s governance structure to the heavy bureaucracy endemic in the system. Corner also recognised these flaws. But what will be the next steps in addressing this?
Kwasi Kwarteng, in thanking Tickell for his work, suggested that “a detailed government response to the specific recommendations in your report will follow later in the year”. UKRI is already taking matters into its own hands with its ‘simpler, better funding’ initiative, but is it enough? I think there’ll be a more significant change to come in 2023. Of course, all this may be moot with the long-anticipated Nurse Review of the R&D landscape. This has been promised for most of 2022, and was touted to arrive before Christmas, so expect it any time soon.
We’ll be expected to share more.
It’s been more than a decade since the Wakeham efficiency review recommended “the more intensive use of existing and new assets”, or equipment sharing. Little resulted from this, despite the best efforts of N8 and other regional consortia. UKRI does demand that “all new equipment purchased over £138,000…be registered on the Equipment Data national database”, but the database is somewhat clunky and little used, and Jisc is currently consulting on how to overhaul it. Jisc’s report on this should come out this year, together with the steps to replace it. With this in place, I can imagine there being a stronger push, in tight budgetary times, to share equipment more meaningfully. It’s something we’re exploring across Eastern Arc, and I know we’re not alone in doing so.
Politicians may start making eyes at us.
Finally, with the next general election due in 2024, a cautious tango will begin: the politicians will start to court researchers and universities (remember, much mileage has been made by both the Conservatives and Labour of the value of R&D to the future prosperity of the country). Equally, the big universities and mission groups will be lobbying to make sure their desires are heard.
Who knows what promises will be made in 2023—by either side. To see that would take a crystal ball with greater sensitivity than mine can muster. Maybe this could be a topic for Aria’s first funding programme.
A version of this article first appeared in Funding Insight in January 2023 and is reproduced with kind permission of Research Professional. For more articles like this, visit www.researchprofessional.com