Are thematic priorities worth the effort?
Teenage dress sense and universities’ strategic research priorities may appear to have very little in common. But both hold to a universal law that I’m going to call the Phil Ward Principle of Homogeneity: the more unique we try to be, the more uniform we appear to others.
UK Tribes, a cultural research project by the broadcaster Channel 4 to identify the nation’s youth subcultures, puts it well when it describes the loose grouping of ‘alternative tribes’ of modern Britain: “Tired of cookie-cutter celebs and how everyone at school looks the same, alternative tribes are driven by the need to set themselves apart from the mainstream. From candy-hued hair to sleeve tattoos and multiple piercings, they’re determined to be different—but do it together.”
Difference is difficult
Universities are equally “determined to be different”, but are loath to “do it together”. They seek to stand out from their competitors, but are often unable to do so because their thematic priorities seek to include as much of their research as possible—and are therefore generic to the point of magnolia—but also be relevant to the external funding flavours du jour. As such, they inevitably bump into and overlap with others.
Earlier this year, I did an analysis of the stated strategic research priorities of the Russell Group of research universities in the UK and former 1994 Group universities (smaller research-intensive institutions that were founded that year). Of the 38 institutions within this cluster, almost two-thirds (23) had thematic priorities.
I believe there are four reasons for doing so, and these can be mapped onto a continuum running from being a passive ‘shop window’ at one end, to having a deliberate and directive ‘case for cash’ at the other, as illustrated in the Phil Ward Continuum of Priority Rationalisation presented here:
Most institutions present their themes as articles of faith, corresponding closely with the second and third rationales (‘emphasise beliefs’, ‘prioritise efforts’) given above. Some evidence them with metrics. For instance, at University College London, ‘mental health and wellbeing’ is top of the metric totem pole (£20m, 150 researchers, 82 projects), while ‘justice and equality’ (£200,000) and ‘transformative technology’ (30 projects) are the poor relations. It’s a bit like playing Top Trumps.
Few of the universities are explicit about having thematic priorities in order to position themselves for winning awards. Their cause is apparently far nobler. However, the University of Bath is refreshingly honest. It might start out saying that its thematic priorities will “empower our research community to tackle major global challenges”, but then it cuts to the chase. Its priority initiative “supports a culture of grant capture for multidisciplinary collaborations that address UK Research and Innovation strategic themes”. But what will happen when our national funder decides to refresh its themes?
The number of priorities for the 23 universities ranges between three and 10, with the average being five, falling broadly into the following categories:
Health: The most popular of the themes, with 20 of the 23 institutions having a claimed strength in this area, and some having more than one. Some are relatively specific, such as ‘cancer’ at Manchester or ‘infectious diseases’ at Liverpool, but most go for something more generic, from ‘healthy society’ (Imperial) to ‘health and wellbeing’ (Bath, Nottingham and York), ‘healthy living for all’ (Queen’s University Belfast) and ‘lifelong health’ (Surrey).
Environment: Here, universities take bites at the same issue from different angles: ‘sustainable societies’ (Imperial and Nottingham), ‘sustainable cities’ (UCL and Warwick), and ‘sustainable food’ (Sheffield). You get a sense that, if you gathered together all this fractured and atomised effort, you really could crack this.
Society: The keywords here are ‘social justice’, from ‘striving for social justice’ (Bristol) to ‘social and economic justice’ (Goldsmiths), ‘social justice, inequalities and conflict’ (Kent) and back to plain old ‘social justice’ (Leicester).
Technology: There’s a creeping unease with technology detectable here. On the one hand, we have the exciting potential of a new dawn (from the vaguely Instagram-friendly ‘future life’ at Glasgow to a ‘smart society’ at Imperial), and on the other, a palpable terror of what’s to come (‘cybersecurity’ at Warwick and ‘secure connected intelligence’ at Queen’s).
Culture: You can imagine the strategic discussions that led to the final category. “Right, we’ve got the basics sorted. Shall we throw in something artsy?” “Yes,” comes the reply, “but we’ve got to make it relevant.” So Glasgow has ‘cultural and creative industries’, Goldsmiths goes for ‘invention, creativity and experience’, UCL has ‘culture and understanding’, and both Nottingham and York offer ‘culture and communication(s)’.
By striving to be unique, the universities demonstrate that they are anything but. The reasons are understandable, but do negate the value that a priority can offer. It’s rare and refreshing when a university offers up something unusual (I’m looking at you, Leicester, with your Asimovian ‘space power and AI’), but it’s risky: they will be waiting for some time before a major funder offers up a call in the area. When it does so, however, the payoff will be immense. While the others scrabble forth from their ‘health and wellbeing’ resting position, the space scientists of Leicester will be coining it in. The candy-hued hair and sleeve tattoos will have been worth it after all.
Phil Ward is director of the Eastern Arc regional research consortium, UK
This is an extract from an article in Research Professional’s Funding Insight service. To subscribe contact sales@researchresearch.com