As Labour eyes reshaping the higher education sector, it risks reviving a binary divide that history shows would weaken UK research.
While there is much to admire in the post-16 education and skills white paper regarding the vision for upskilling the population, there are some more difficult proposals. There in the shadows lies the call for HE institutions to specialise, with the lurking threat that many will lose their research funding in some, but perhaps many, areas, in order to better fund those with more intensive research.
The threat resides in the very phrasing used to describe research funding reform in the white paper, the “strategic distribution of research activity across the sector” to ensure institutions are “empowered to build deep expertise in areas where they can lead.” What is the benchmark here for judging whether someone can lead?
It raises once again the question: should non-intensive research institutions – by which I largely here mean post-92 universities – undertake research at all?
Since the paper came out, both Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology Liz Kendall and science minister Sir Patrick Vallance have stressed that this “specialisation” will not privilege the traditional elite institutions, with Sir Patrick describing as “very bizarre” the idea that prioritisation necessarily means concentration of power in a few universities.
Liz Kendall echoes this logic, framing strategically focused funding as akin to a “no-compromise approach,” similar to investing more intensely in select Olympic sports to win medals rather than spreading resources thinly over many.
Yet for many post-92 institutions, this re-engineering of UK research funding spells very real danger. Under a model that favours “deep expertise” in fewer, strongly performing institutions, funding for more broadly based teaching and research universities risks erosion. The very students and communities that post-92 universities serve – often more diverse, more regional, and less elite – may find themselves further marginalised.
Moreover, even where teaching-only models are adopted, there is already private concern that degrees taught without regular input from research-active staff risk being perceived as inferior, despite charging similar fees. Pushing these providers towards a “teaching-only” role risks repeating a mistake we thought we had left behind before 1992, when polytechnics undertook valuable research but were excluded from national frameworks.
Excellence and application
When I wrote earlier this year that so-called “research minnows” have a vital role in UK arts and humanities doctoral research, the argument was simple: diversity of institutions, methods, locations, and people strengthens research. That truth matters even more today.
Before 1992, polytechnics undertook valuable research in health, education, design and industry partnerships, amongst other things. But they were structurally excluded from national assessment and funding. In 1989, Parliament described that exclusion as an “injustice,” now it appears it may be seen as just. Yet it’s not clear what has materially changed to form that view, beyond a desire to better fund some research.
The 1992 reforms did not “invent” research in the ex-polytechnics. They recognised it – opening the door to participation in the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), quality-related funding and Research Council grants. Once given visibility, excellence surfaced quickly. It did so because it had always been there.
In the 1996 Research Assessment Exercise – only the second in which post-92s could take part – De Montfort University’s Built Environment submission was rated 4 out of 5*. That placed it firmly in the category of nationally excellent research with international recognition, a standard many established pre-92 departments did not reach in that assessment panel. Indeed, the University of Salford topped the unit of assessment with 5*, just as City did in Library Studies. In Civil Engineering, the 5s of UCL and Bristol were also matched by City.
In Physics, Hertfordshire with a 4 equalled most Russell Group universities, as did their score in Computer Science. In the areas of Linguistics and in Russian Thames Valley (University of West London) and Portsmouth earned 5s respectively, equalling Oxford and Cambridge. In Sports Liverpool John Moores and Brighton topped the ranking alongside Loughborough with their 5s.
And it wasn’t just the ex-polytechnics that shone in many areas; the universities formed from institutes also did. The University of Gloucester outperformed Cambridge in Town and City Planning with their 4 against a 3a. Southampton Solent received a 4 in History, equalling York.
The RAE 1996 results are worth recalling; as new universities who had previously not had the seed funding monies of the older universities, we certainly punched above our weight.
Since their re-designation as universities, and even before, post-92 universities have built distinctive and complementary research cultures: applied, interdisciplinary, and place-anchored. Their work is designed to move quickly from knowledge to practice – spanning health interventions to creative industries, curriculum reform to urban sustainability.
Applied and interdisciplinary strength was evident in 1996 in the high scores (4) in areas of Allied Health, (Greenwich, Portsmouth and Sheffield Hallam), sociology (4) (City), Social Policy (4) (London South Bank and Middlesex). Art and Design was dominated by post 92s, as were Communications and Cultural Studies (with 5s for Westminster and University of East London). In Music, City (5), DMU and Huddersfield (4) saw off many pre-92s.
This is not second-tier research. It broadens the national portfolio, connects directly to communities, and trains the professionals who sustain public services. To turn these universities into “teaching-only” providers would not only weaken their missions, it would shrink the UK’s research base at the very moment that the government wants it to grow.
Learning history’s lessons
Research, which as we know universities undertake at a loss, has been subsidised over the last decades through cross subsidy from international student fees and other methods. Those who have been able to charge the highest international fees have had greater resource.
But I wonder what the UK research and economic landscape would look like now if thirty years ago national centres of excellence were created following the 1996 RAE, rather than letting much of our excellent national research wither because there was no institutional cross subsidy available? Had that been undertaken we would have stronger research now, with centres of research excellence in places where the footprint of that discipline has entirely disappeared.
There is a temptation to concentrate funding in fewer institutions, on the assumption that excellence lives only in the familiar elite. But international evidence shows that over-concentration delivers diminishing returns, while broader distribution fosters innovation and resilience. Moreover, our focus on golden triangles, clusters and corridors of innovation, can exclude those more geographically remote areas; we might think of the University of Lincoln’s leadership of advancing artificial intelligence in defence decision-making or agri-tech, or Plymouth’s marine science expertise. Post-92 research is often conducted hand-in hand with industry; a model that is very much needed.
If the government wants results – more innovation, stronger services, a wider skills base – it must back promising work wherever it emerges, not only in the institutions the system has historically favoured.
The binary divide was abolished in 1992 because it limited national capacity and ignored excellence outside a privileged tier. Re-creating that exclusion under a new label would repeat the same mistake, and exclude strong place-based research.
If Labour wants a stronger, fairer system, it must resist the lure of neat hierarchies and support the full spectrum of UK excellence: theoretical and applied, lab-based and practice-led, national and local. That is the promise of the so-called “minnows” – not a drag on ambition, but one of the surest ways to achieve it. Sometimes minnows grow into big fish!
Fund wherever there is excellence, and let that potential grow – spread opportunity wide enough for strengths to surface, especially in institutions that widen participation and anchor regional growth. The lesson is clear: when you sideline parts of the sector, you risk cutting off strengths before they are seen.
