UKRI, excluding Research England and Innovate UK because of how their data is reported, has published equalities monitoring for 2023–24. The data covers the characteristics of grant applicants and awardees, and members of the panels who made funding decisions. UKRI is not the only funding body but given its outsized role within the sector it is a useful if partial tool in understanding diversity of funding awards in the sector more broadly.

The UKRI team uses “permutation tests to compare groups and determine if there are statistically significant differences between them.” The presentation of the data allows for both a descriptive analysis of differences of award rates between groups of people and an evaluation of the significance of these differences.

The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) has the highest number of total applicants for funding while the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) has the fewest. There is no single age group that has the highest award across all funding councils while there is not a statistically significant difference in award rates for those who declare a disability and those who do not declare a disability.

White applicants were most likely to apply for principal investigator and co-investigator leads. The report notes that:

White applicants and applicants who did not disclose their ethnicity had a significantly higher award rate than both Asian and Black applicants. White co-investigator applicants and co-investigator applicants who did not disclose their ethnicity also had a significantly higher award rate than Asian co-investigator applicants.

Gender disparities, in favour of men, persists in terms of applications, however “Female fellows had a higher award rate than their male counterparts in all financial years since 2015 to 2016.”

The panels that make these decisions are predominantly White, male, and not disabled, UKRI notes that “These demographics emphasise the importance of continued efforts to diversify panel membership.”

In taking an intersectional lens, so looking at multiple characteristics at once to understand their interactions, we learn that

Cumulatively, for principal investigators, White male applicants received over half of awards, at 55%. For fellows, White female applicants received 39% of the awards, and White male applicants 37%.

The data release is accompanied by a blog from former UKRI chief Executive Ottoline Leyser where she makes the case that the involvement of underrepresented groups in research is central to novelty of thought and broadening the research base. In what could either be read generally as a point on researcher diversity, or specifically as a missive against those agitating against the inclusion of People, Culture, and Environment assessment in REF, she also notes that

The typical response to bias against under-represented groups is to narrow the assessment criteria to focus on those considered objective, such as the number and quality of papers someone has published. This inherently reduces diversity, for example by excluding people who have followed unusual career paths.

The data shines a light on the well known challenges of diversity in the research ecosystem. There is work going on to address these gaps including by UKRI, the metascience unit, and by central government. The hope is that gaps in awards will close and encourage greater diversity in research. The challenge is that gaps in award rate by ethnicity are persistent and little progress has been made in closing the award gap.