Written Evidence Submitted by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)

(DIV0084)

1.      UKRI supported the APPG on Diversity and Inclusion in STEM’s inquiry via written evidence and participating in roundtables and we welcome their report. Much of the evidence provided in this response builds on that submission.

2.      Whilst the scope of this inquiry focusses on STEM in academia and industry, it is important to recognise the multidisciplinary nature of research and innovation which includes the arts, humanities and social sciences. These challenges are not unique to STEM but are evident across the whole research and innovation system, and society.

3.      This is acknowledged through the Government’s research and development (R&D) People and Culture Strategy, which calls for the sector to take action to create a more inclusive and diverse research and innovation system.

4.      There is no single definition of the STEM workforce. STEM is a very wide domain and there is huge variation across it, including in the representation of different groups. Under-representation is real but equally difficult to define and understand, which can lead to difficulty in benchmarking.

5.      To address gaps and weaknesses in the data, it is imperative that the sector works together to collect high quality, consistent and reliable data on the STEM workforce. Inconsistent terminology and definitions limit the ability to baseline, measure impact, and produce effective data-driven policy interventions.

6.      High quality quantitative data are essential and can provide useful insights if they are interrogated at the right level of granularity for the issues of interest. Under or over representation of specific groups identified in the data provide the starting point for an investigation of their underlying causes, which obviously require much richer forms of evidence to inform policies and actions.

7.      UKRI continues to work hard to improve, publish and analyse our EDI data. Our work illustrates all of the above points. There are gaps in our data which we are seeking to address, and while there is tremendous benefit from pooling data from across the full UKRI remit, this also carries risks in the loss of essential granularity for many of the questions of interest.

8.      The data used in this response cover only UKRI funding to individuals from across the seven research councils and the research population within the higher education sector. We include information from across UKRI, covering all disciplines.

9.      The majority of funding UKRI provides to businesses, through Innovate UK, is not awarded to individuals and these data are not included. However, Innovate UK does collect EDI data on lead applicants and in the future EDI data on project teams and organisations will also be captured. Innovate UK will publish its first review of EDI data in Spring 2022, after introducing an updated EDI survey and making survey completion a requirement for competition applicant leads in 2020.

Q1: The nature or extent to which women, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds are underrepresented in STEM in academia and industry;

10.  UKRI is a major funder and employer within the research and innovation system and publishes its applicant and award data for transparency and to aid understanding of the nature or extent to which certain groups are under-represented. These data provide evidence of the stark inequalities that exist within the research and innovation system.

11.  Data on ethnic minorities, women and people with a disability have been collected for some time, but we lack data on other important characteristics such as socioeconomic background.

12.  The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) publishes Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) data for the higher education sector[1] which provides a relatively robust dataset for academia. This can be used alongside UKRI data to understand demographic representation within higher education institutions of those on research contracts[2] and students on postgraduate research (PGR) programmes[3].

13.  Data on funding applicants and awardees for UKRI overall can mask large variation between Research Councils. Therefore, where possible, UKRI publishes data at both the UKRI and Research Council level. Estimates of the demographic profile for the underlying higher education research population for each Research Council have also been constructed and published from HESA data[4]. Results are available by gender, ethnicity, age category and disability and together with UKRI’s own data, demonstrate that demographic profiles differ by disciplines. 

14.  UKRI has published applicant and award data since June 2020. We previously reported on the key findings from this data (for 2014-15 and 2018-19[5]) within our response[6] to the APPG Inquiry into Equity in STEM Workforce in January 2021.

15.  Since the APPG Inquiry, we have continued to build our data capabilities and make our data transparent and accessible. We published our first detailed ethnicity analysis in December 2020[7], the latest diversity data for 2019-20 in March 2021[8] and latest detailed ethnicity analysis in October 2021, which includes disaggregated ethnicity data[9]. UKRI data continues to show disparities for under-represented groups in applying for and winning research funding.

16.  There is not currently a formal or consistent process for capturing EDI information across the sector, which makes it harder to target interventions and understand variance between groups. As noted above and outlined in our response to the APPG inquiry, the sector should work collectively to make accessible high quality, consistent and reliable data on the research and innovation system’s workforce.

17.  Many factors affect the data collection and analysis process, including how the questions are posed, the categories provided, the accessibility of the system, transparency of the work and respondent’s trust in the process or the asking organisation. These factors may play a role in underreporting for some protected characteristics.

18.  As well as looking at those who apply for or are awarded funding or those who are employed in the sector, it is important to recognise the need to address wider participation across the whole system, for example those involved in decision-making such as advisory groups, panels and boards[10]. UKRI is exploring these issues further, for example EPSRC have recently published data on peer review participation[11]. More generally, this is a priority area for UKRI to explore further in Summer 2022.

19.  Diversity among these groups, with engaged discussion, promotes high quality decision making. However, there are risks with over-burdening under-represented groups, especially in the context of a research and innovation culture that undervalues these advisory roles.

20.  UKRI data are benchmarked against labour workforce data and HESA data for wider academic staff on both teaching and research contracts. Data across three roles are captured: Co Investigators (CIs), Principal Investigators (PIs) and Fellows. Some key points from the data for UKRI include:

1. The proportion of female applicants and awardees for research grants and fellowships has increased since 2014-15. However, for the PI and CI roles, the percentage of female awardees has consistently been below the benchmark HESA data for wider academic staff. In 2019-20, 30% of PI awardees and 34% of CI awardees reported their gender as female compared with the HESA data at 42%[12][13]. The percentage of Fellow awardees reporting their gender as female in 2019-20 was higher than the other role types at 46%. Further analysis is underway to understand the possible causes of these differences, including analysis at different levels of granularity for the Fellow category, which covers a very wide range of schemes, across disciplines and career stages.

2. The percentage of applicants reporting a disability (1% to 3% across the 3 roles noted above) was lower in 2019-20 than HESA data for academic staff on teaching and research contracts (4%)[14] and of the wider UK labour market (13%)[15].

3. Since 2014-15 the percentage of ethnic minority applicants and awardees has increased for all three role types to 18% for CIs, 17% for Fellows and 12% for PIs in 2019-20. For CIs and Fellows, the ethnic minority share of awardees exceeds HESA data for academic staff on teaching and research contracts at 15%[16] and data for the employed population at 13%[17]. However, for PIs, the ethnic minority share of awardees continues to fall below both benchmarks.

4. Representation also differs for individual ethnic groups. In 2019-20 the Asian and Mixed ethnic group awardee shares for all role types were either equal to or above both benchmarks. In contrast the Black ethnic group awardee share was only equal to or above the benchmarks for the CI role. For PIs, only 1% of awardees reported a Black ethnicity in 2019-20 and for Fellows between 1 and 4 awardees out of a total of approximately 440 reported a Black ethnicity leading to the data being suppressed.  

5. In the 2019-20 dataset, award rates were lower for ethnic minority applicants and for PI and CI applicants reporting a disability. Differences in award rate by gender differ by role type. Male and female PI applicants had the same award rate for the first time since 2014-15. For Fellows, females have a higher award rate than males in five of the last six years whilst for CIs males have consistently had a higher award rate.

4. For UKRI-funded doctoral students, data is provided on recruited students by the HEIs where the students are registered. Although the proportion of disabled doctoral students has increased since 2014/15, from 5% to 8%, this remains below the HESA estimate of disabled PGR students (10%)[18]. 2% of UKRI funded doctoral students did not disclose their disability status in 2019/20. For ethnicity data for doctoral students, it is difficult to draw conclusions when comparing to HESA data as ethnicity data is unknown for approximately 30% of students each year. The data we do have point to significant under-representation of Black and Asian ethnic groups.

21.  Whilst we do not currently collect data on socioeconomic background, we have been working with the sector to develop processes to help increase our understanding of how we might assess the impact of socioeconomic background, for example Nesta’s report on social mobility in the creative industries[19], supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), sets out the evidence on the causes of class imbalances in creative roles.

22.  More also needs to be done to understand further what happens when protected characteristics overlap. UKRI has committed to publishing intersectionality data as part of our next data release in 2022.

23.  Within the wider research and innovation system, other funders are also working to share their own data and findings. Ethnicity in STEM academic communities[20] and Disability in STEM[21] both show data and research commissioned by the Royal Society. Key reports, including the recent ‘Which University degrees are best for intergenerational mobility?’ report[22] by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, also start to provide an insight into tackling inequalities in higher education.

24.  UKRI’s Annual Report[23] (see p129) outlines our workforce numbers by some protected characteristics. Representation of female and ethnic minority staff has increased since the foundation of UKRI in 2018. Female representation has increased from 42% in March 2018 (3172 out of 7571 headcount) to 45% female as of March 2021, (3708 out of 8226 headcount). Ethnic minority representation has increased from just under 6% in March 2018 (441 out of 7571) to just over 7% ethnic minority by March 2021 (583 out of 8226 headcount). UKRI’s own Gender Pay Gap (GPG) report 2020[24] shows overall the median GPG for UKRI is 10.7%, compared to the national average for 2020 of 15.5%. The GPG decreased in 2020 from our 2019 report which showed our average and median gender pay gaps were 11.7% and 13.7%, respectively. UKRI’s HR team continue to monitor workforce data and are working to analyse and tackle specific challenges.

25.  Our workforce includes a very wide range of roles, from those working in our Institutes and National Laboratories in research and technology delivery roles to those working in administrative roles, for example delivering our research grant award systems. There is variation in the diversity profiles across these roles.

26.  The APPG on Diversity and Inclusion in STEM also published a State of the Sector report which provides an overview of diversity of the STEM workforce[25].

Q2: The reasons why these groups are under-represented;

27.  The question of why under-representation exists in the research and innovation sector is crucial. However, there is often a tendency to focus on individual biases and under-investigate or take limited action to address systemic issues. UKRI commissioned AdvanceHE to review EDI interventions and outline actions that could transform the sector. A key finding from that work was the need for a whole systems approach, embedding EDI awareness and initiatives within organisational culture across the whole system.

28.  In understanding barriers to participation, a systems approach that understands the root causes of issues and how they are linked is critical and will require action across all parts of the R&D system. When considering more systemically, there are a number of key themes, including:

1. Narrow conception of a STEM career: Having a narrow concept in society of what a STEM career looks like can affect the choices of students when thinking about universities and school subjects. These issues are explored in the APPG’s report.

2. Narrow access routes into the research system: The doctoral student population is not as diverse as the UK population. There are inequalities for key groups in access to, participation in and outcomes following doctoral study. Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in Higher Education (TASO) and The Policy Institute at King’s College London aim to provide evidence about how to address underrepresentation of students from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) backgrounds by evaluating the impact of 13 projects, funded by the Office for Students and Research England, which seek to improve access and participation[26]. At undergraduate level, much attention has been paid to socio-economic inequalities in access and there is previous evidence of socio-economic inequalities in access to PhDs[27]. However socio-economic background data is not readily available for postgraduates to allow us to investigate patterns comprehensively. The research system can be particularly difficult for disabled people undertaking their PhD for several reasons, ranging from, but not limited to, the role of research culture in shaping expectations and working practices, continually seeking adjustments, lack of specialist support from supervisors/disabled student services relevant for research environments and lack of awareness of the support available [28], [29], [30], [31]. We see drops in the proportion of disabled people within academia/universities with increasing seniority, which may be due to disabled people choosing not to disclose or moving to different types of roles[32]. Whilst we have some information about graduate outcomes for disabled students[33], this is not enough to tell us in much detail about the trajectories of disabled people into doctoral training. This gap in evidence for disabled students and postgraduate researchers overall, illustrates the need for more cross-sector work to build comprehensive data in this area.

3. Narrow definitions of success criteria: Reliance on an overly narrow set of criteria for assessing performance negatively impacts diversity in a number of ways. For example, access to PhD training typically relies on undergraduate performance. However, improving diversity in research an innovation requires support for diverse career paths, for example ensuring access to PhD study from the workplace, as well as from undergraduate study. This requires workplace experience to be valued in a comparable way to undergraduate performance.  Similarly, in assessing research success, high profile research publications are often given particular weight. In the context of the highly competitive nature of research funding, this can create strong pressures on researchers to produce particular outcomes. This can in turn lead to bullying and harassment and compromise the integrity of the research undertaken. Broadening success criteria requires action from many stakeholders. UKRI aims to support the sector through a Good Practice Exchange (GPEx), as set out in the government’s People and Culture Strategy, to build the evidence base, share knowledge, and identify what works. The first pilot programme launched as part of GPEx is UKRI’s work to support the R&I community adoption of Resume for Research and Innovation. This short-form narrative CV allows people working across the research and innovation sector to evidence a wider range of activities and contributions during assessments, as outlined below.  

4. Poor research culture: As described above, overly narrow success criteria in the context of a highly competitive system based on individual success can lead to poor research culture, which contrasts with the need for a working environment that is open and inclusive to different people and approaches. A poor research culture disproportionately affects under-represented groups, and in some cases creates structural and systemic barriers that limit participation [34] [35] [36] [37]. Institutional gatekeeping may also play a powerful role in determining the participation of an individual in STEM. There is anecdotal evidence that the lack of support and encouragement for individuals has a significant impact on careers. 

29.  UKRI continues to work to investigate under-representation at a system level. Recognising that there are different issues in different disciplines, and that the evidence base for effective interventions is poor, we are working across the organisation through a range of Council-led programmes to understand the causes and pilot interventions.

30.  For example, as part of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council’s (EPSRC) Inclusion Matters programme[38], Evidence Base has been established to promote and execute a systems-based approach to problems of equality, diversity and inclusion in STEM. EPSRC has also undertaken analysis to understand better the disparity of gender and race in its funding portfolio and has been engaging with its community on the findings. The results will be published in 2022.

31.  We are also exploring ways to encourage inclusivity and attract and support doctoral students from all backgrounds, including those who normally might not consider a career in research. For example, in April 2021, NERC invited training grant holders to share with us the current practice, policy and actions being taken to widen participation and access within their programmes. Using these submissions, working with the community, we developed a set of Best Practice Principles for doctoral recruitment for NERC training grant holders[39]. Complementing this work, UKRI sent a questionnaire to all our Training Grant Holders in Autumn 2021 which will be followed up by a series of workshops in January 2022 to help us develop a Good Practice Guide and Toolkit to support widening participation in doctoral studies.

32.  In addition we have a joint programme with the Office for Students (OfS) funding projects across the UK aimed at widening the participation of Black, Asian and minority ethnic students[40] in postgraduate research.

33.  Good monitoring and evaluation across the sector is also important to overcoming barriers to participation, this can help us be as effective as possible whilst being able to track any particular areas or concern.

Q3: the implications of these groups being underrepresented in STEM roles in academia and industry

34.  The lack of diversity across the research and innovation community represents a significant loss of potential talent to the UK, limiting UK competitiveness and prosperity. Furthermore, there is evidence that diversity, with open and engaged discussion, supports creativity and problem solving, which are key to research and innovation success. These issues are explored in a report from the National Federation of Self Employed & Small Businesses[41] (FSB) and the Equity in STEM report from the APPG.

35.  Lack of diversity can also lead to ‘blind spots’ which can, for example, result in racial bias in medical research.

36.  A truly successful research and innovation endeavour is one to which everyone can contribute and from which everyone can benefit, with no barriers between it and wider society. A lack of diversity in research and innovation is both an cause and a consequence of these barriers, which can slow acceptance and adoption of the outputs of research and innovation.

Q4: what has been done to address underrepresentation of particular groups in STEM roles;

37.  Whilst significant progress still needs to be made to address underrepresentation, UKRI and other funders have taken a number of steps which are outlined in UKRI’s response to the APPG on Diversity and Inclusion in STEM. An updated set of actions to address under-representation and inequalities can be found on our website[42]. To illustrate the breadth of work taking place to address underrepresentation, some further examples are listed below, which seek to tackle the barriers outlined in Q2.

Demystifying STEM and STEM careers. Inspiring young people into a career in STEM through Public Engagement programmes, such as the STEM Ambassador programme and the CREST Awards. UKRI has also launched a campaign to highlight the diverse

roles within the R&I sector. The 101 jobs that change the world campaign[43] highlights some of the many roles that contribute to the success of the research and innovation system. We are sharing profiles of the people who work, often behind the scenes, in a wide variety of roles. Together they represent the many fulfilling career paths in research and innovation beyond the traditional image of a researcher or innovator. These jobs are essential to the creative, dynamic research and innovation system we need.

Increasing participation and diversity in innovation. Innovate UK’s Women in Innovation programme aims to get more women with excellent ideas innovating within UK businesses, and the Young Innovators programme supports 18–30-year-olds to develop their innovative ideas. The Women in Innovation programme has seen the number of women leading applications for grants to Innovate UK increase by 70%.  In the 2020 Young Innovators competition, 49% of the 64 award winners were women, and 17% declared a disability.

38.  Increasing public engagement: The Wonder initiative[44] is looking to widen the range of people and community groups that are engaged with the Science and Technology Facilities Council’s (STFC) science and technology and has a particular focus on young people, their families and carers facing socioeconomic challenges. The initiative is about giving under-served communities an equal voice by listening, understanding, and responding to what people want to know about science and technology.

40. Improving equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) within environmental science. The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) has funded 19 £100k projects[45] which seek to tackle the specific EDI challenges facing an academic team or department, or the discipline in a wider sense, and bring together academics to raise awareness of the opportunities for increasing diversity within the environmental sciences.

41. Supporting career development: UKRI are signatories of the Technician Commitment[46] and The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers (Researcher Development Concordat[47]). Key to the Technician Commitment are themes of Career Development and Sustainability, while the Researcher Development Concordat is set around the principles of environment and culture, employment, and professional and career development. UKRI has published action plans associated with these agreements that look to ensure that across the research and innovation landscape non-traditional career paths and inclusive ways of working are supported. UKRI has a greater understanding of those we support and employ and has ensured that technicians and researchers are included in UKRI’s work to support a diverse and inclusive research and innovation system. To aid engagement with the researcher community UKRI has established an Early Career Researcher (ECR) Forum that provides engagement opportunities with a focus on hearing from as diverse a group of ECRs as possible.

42. To help support the sector in tackling under-representation, UKRI have committed to adopting the Resume for Research and Innovation (R4RI) narrative CV in all funding calls that require track record information[48]. Based on the Royal Society’s Résumé for Researchers (R4R)[49], the R4R-like format will allow a people working across the research and innovation sector to evidence a wider range of activities and contributions. The traditional academic CV rewards and recognises a narrow set of criteria, for example publications and grant income. This narrowing of what is visible and valued restricts diversity.  The narrative format allows better description of varied career pathways, reduces focus on continuous productivity, and enables a broader range of people, ideas and outputs to be highlighted.

43. However, culture will not move if only UKRI changes the way it evaluates people. That is why we are supporting the wider R&I community to adopt the R4RI. By creating communities of practice of funders[50] and employers, we are working collectively to share good practice, create tools to support adoption of R4R-like CVs and further develop the evidence base. We are also working towards an international event in March 2022, continuing this work on a global stage and furthering our understanding of how others can be supported to engage with a R4RI-like narrative CV across a range of different contexts and countries. 

44. We are also undertaking an end-to-end review of our peer review process. A key focus of the review will be assessing how UKRI’s assessment processes affect diversity in all senses (people, ideas, careers and more), both of its own grant holders and UKRI’s impact more widely across the sector. The GPEx mentioned above will also form a key part of UKRI’s work to tackle underrepresentation.

Q5: What could and should be done by the UK Government, UK Research and Innovation, other funding bodies, industry and academia to address the issues identified.

45. The Government’s People and Culture Strategy sets out how the Government will lead the action needed to ensure the R&I sector has a culture that truly supports discovery, diversity and innovation. The Strategy looks at the whole R&I system, rather than narrowly focussing on specific issues or disciplines. Approaching diversity and inclusion in this way is key to understanding and identifying solutions. UKRI supports the actions laid out in the strategy and is delivering on its aims. UKRI has published its EDI strategy and consultation, which will be followed by action plans later in 2022.

About UKRI

Launched in April 2018, UKRI is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). Operating across the whole of the UK with a combined budget of more than £7.9 billion (2021-22), UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) brings together the seven disciplinary research councils, Innovate UK and Research England. Our vision is for an outstanding research and innovation system in the UK that gives everyone the opportunity to contribute and to benefit, enriching lives locally, nationally and internationally. Our mission is to convene, catalyse and invest in close collaboration with others to build a thriving inclusive research and innovation system that connects discovery to prosperity and public good. 

(January 2022)