At the 40th anniversary celebration of the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) on 10th February, UKRI Chief Executive Ian Chapman spoke eloquently on the opportunity that the research community has to put research and innovation at the heart of national prosperity.
This is of course important – there is a wealth of evidence on the economic benefits of public investment in research and innovation, with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology estimating last year that £1 of investment generates £8 in net economic benefits for the UK over the long term.
However, prosperity needs not only to be created, but to be widely shared and felt across the country. If you’re in any doubt about that, look at the 2024 US election campaign – despite the Democrats citing a range of positive economic policies and indicators, negative voter perceptions of the economy delivered a victory for Trump. Relying on standard claims of driving economic growth doesn’t cut it any more. The rise of populism over the past decade suggests that citizens and communities are fed up of being told about the importance of economic growth when they perceive no tangible evidence of its benefits. Declining public trust in institutions suggests that universities cannot take public support for research granted.
Disconnects and disconnected
The valuable work done by CaSE on public attitudes to R&D tell us that most people feel disconnected from R&D and unsure about its benefits. The latest UKRI/British Science Association Public Attitudes to Science survey points to a worrying trend of ambivalence and uncertainty about the value of science and increasing confusion about what information to trust. This is a fundamental risk to the social contract which underpins the public funding of research: if the public doesn’t think research is delivering for them, why would they continue to support its funding? The research endeavour remains remote for many people and peripheral to everyday lives and concerns. This should be a huge concern to everyone in the research community.
Having woken up to the fact that emphasising economic growth may go down well in Westminster but not so much in the country more widely, the sector is now in danger of telling itself that the answer is simply ‘better communication’. If only we can find the right narrative or tell a better story, all will be well. But there is a risk in assuming that the impacts of research (despite a wealth of evidence) are self-evident, if only we can find a way to get people to understand them.
Of course, communication matters. We know that storytelling in particular is a hugely powerful way of connecting with people and building public support (look at Mr Bates vs The Post Office). And it is certainly a good start to talk less about the benefits of research for economic growth and more about the benefits of research for people. But as my Nana had it, you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. In other words, it’s not just what we say, it’s what we do that matters. Currently, our responsibilities to the public are not always central to the ways in which we carry out and fund research. That needs to change.
Research and researchers
As well as opening up universities and research institutes, we need research and researchers to get out into places in the communities we serve – particularly where there may be little history of engagement with or a deep scepticism towards universities and in places that can be left out of the ‘knowledge economy’. We need to get beyond the bubble of those who already want to work with us.
Public engagement programmes are part of the answer, but are insufficient for achieving the fundamental and material shift in the way we work. Universities currently under-invest in building long-term relationships with those who can benefit from research, particularly those in disadvantaged places and communities. We need to take our responsibility to understand and respond to public needs and interests much more seriously. That requires embedding an ongoing commitment to maintaining meaningful open dialogue with different publics as a fundamental aspect of the university mission. That dialogue must then informing how we work and what we do. Research needs to be seen much more as a partnership between researchers and other parts of society, not an activity done by researchers to society. Funding and assessment regimes also have a key role in incentivising research which is better oriented towards delivering tangible public benefit.
There are signs of hope. Collaborative initiatives between researchers and communities such as the Community Gateway partnership between the Grangetown district of Cardiff and Cardiff University are delivering real and visible benefits to residents. Community-led research initiatives like the Ideas Fund or Community Research Networks are building capacity to deliver research which directly responds to community need. The UCL East Community Board brings UCL and community partners together to develop shared responses to challenges and opportunities in East London. Embedding this work as core to the research endeavour requires sustained commitment across the sector, and recognition that this is a long-term undertaking, not a quick fix.
Going back to that CaSE event, Ian Chapman also emphasised that research and innovation is done ‘in service of the public’. This, surely, has to be the foundational mission for UKRI – and for all of us in the research community. It is at the core of what research should be about and underpins the case for public funding. Delivering on it – meaningfully, tangibly, and so that the public see, hear and feel the benefits of research in their daily lives, is the critical challenge we now face. It is one which we can’t afford to fail.
