UKRI takes the heat out of the minister’s missive

Over the weekend Michelle Donelan, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, tweeted at UKRI on appointments made to Research England’s EDI advisory group.

In it Donelan took the divisive step of criticising individual academics while raising concerns about the wider equality work of UKRI.

As I wrote on Wonkhe, the very important issues of free-speech, public appointments and EDI deserve more attention than a weekend twitter exchange fuelled by a hasty policy note-cum-press-release from the minister’s preferred think tank.

An open letter has gathered pace over the week concerned that the minister’s actions represented inappropriate interference in freedom of speech and drew into question the independence of UKRI. As my colleague DK has noted elsewhere on the site the minister has limited powers to direct who UKRI appoints to what.

UKRI has written a response to the minister that toes a careful line in agreeing to suspend and review Research England’s EDI advisor group while refusing to immediately scrap the group entirely, abandon wider EDI work, or single out individuals on its sub-committee for criticism.

Ottoline Leyser, Chief Executive of UKRI, has written to the minister that she is

deeply concerned about the issues you raise in your letter and I am taking swift and robust action accordingly. This action is guided by the principles you articulate, including the Nolan Principles and freedom of speech within the law, and will follow the procedures set out in the advisory group conditions of appointment.

The swift and robust action is to suspend the work of the EDI Advisory Group; investigate the specific complaints made by the minister, review the future of the EDI group (to allow for an “evidenced, principled”, board decision); and continue the ongoing review of UKRI’s advisory structures. The work will be concluded “as quickly as reasonably possible.”

UKRI’s response will give the minister satisfaction that they are responding to her concerns but it astutely avoids tackling some of the core implications of the minister’s tweet.

Leyser has not taken, or asked Research England to take, immediate action against the individuals named by Donelan. This would have added pressure to individuals that are undoubtedly impacted by being thrust into the public spotlight. That UKRI has said they have to carry out a process based on documented codes of conduct for appointees stands in contrast to the broad accusations made by the minister.

UKRI also notably does not concede that it has gone too far on EDI issues. In fact, Leyser’s letter notes that their strategy on EDI work already aligns with government ambitions, and represents a part of delivering their Science and Technology Framework (and the wider UKRI strategy that was approved by the Secretary of State). It is a polite but clear repudiation that UKRI’s EDI work is unduly bureaucratic or misaligned to the government’s wider research ambitions.

UKRI has committed to looking at the nature of appointments. Some will undoubtedly see this as UKRI conceding ground over an issue which is at its heart about freedom of speech. On the other hand their commitment is a significant one to look at this issue carefully in a way that a weekend twitter exchange cannot do justice. Or as they say:

We will consider whether these processes have worked as intended in this instance, whether further guidance or training can be offered to support those who take up positions on our advisory committees and related bodies, and whether there are lessons learned that can be applied more widely across UKRI. We will consider the balance of our approach to due diligence.

UKRI is also considering its processes for the establishment of and appointment to advisory groups including:

 support for members to manage issues of real and perceived impartiality.

Politically, UKRI is trying to walk a middle ground of taking the heat away from individuals while reviewing its wider processes. The benefit of this approach is that it allows time to consider the deeply fraught issues of public appointments, free speech, and providing robust advice on EDI issues. The risk is that in taking a middle ground UKRI is challenged by both academics and government.

Of course, suspension of the advisory group does not solve the underlying issues of free-speech and public appointments nor will it immediately quell the anger that has emerged over the weekend.

However, it does give time but hopefully not too much as to slow down UKRI’s important work on EDI yet to be done.