Whatever you might say about the Johnson Government, it’s not shy of launching policies and strategies.
Not only have we have the R&D Roadmap, the Levelling Up White Paper, a People and Culture Strategy, an Innovation Strategy, a Life Sciences Vision, and a Plan for Growth, but we’ve also got a slew of reviews, consultations, assessments, and analyses.
One of the most relevant to the UK’s research and innovation system is the review led by Paul Nurse looking at the RDI landscape. ‘The UK government wants to build on the manifest strengths of the RDI system across the UK,’ breathlessly states the review’s terms of reference, ‘and nurture its diversity, ranging from the pipeline of pioneering, visionary blue-skies research through to practical support for innovators to commercialise their ideas.’
‘Nurture its diversity’ is a bit of a no-brainer for us at Fundermentals Towers. Research (for example Petrescu 2019, Swartz et al 2019 or Freeman & Huang 2014) has shown that ‘diversity enhances excellence and innovation’. An RDI environment that recognises and supports a wide diversity of centres and strengths, voices and viewpoints, is more likely to catalyse new thinking, and challenge and question accepted paradigms.
Imagine our surprise, then, when we looked at the membership of the Scoping Group for the review. Of the seven members, there’s a 5:2 ratio of men to women, and there was an average age of 60. There are four members currently involved in research in the UK; of these, three are based at Russell Group (RG) universities, the fourth being at the Crick. Those members educated in the UK received either their UG or PG training (or both) at an RG university. There is no current representation of MissionPlus, GuildHE or the S10 universities within the group.
This feels like a missed opportunity, as well as going counter to the mood music of the R&D People and Culture Strategy. As the last two Research Excellence Frameworks have emphasised, there is a need to ensure ‘that excellent research continues to be well-supported wherever it is found.’ There is real excellence in areas and institutions – and people – you might not expect, and well-informed, invaluable ideas and knowledge available through them. To default to the RG (and the greybeards within) is limiting the chance to get a diversity of opinions and viewpoints.
It helps to replicate the status quo and, however excellent, broad-minded and experienced the chosen members of the Scoping Group are, there is a significant risk that it will not fully recognise and understand the ‘manifest strengths’ of the RDI system – and make the changes necessary to futureproof it.