Consultation outcome

Independent review of research bureaucracy call for evidence document

Updated 28 July 2022

Overview

Professor Adam Tickell, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sussex, has been commissioned by the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation to lead an independent review to advise on a substantial reduction in unnecessary research bureaucracy in government and the wider sector. The review team is in the process of holding evidence gathering meetings across the UK. In addition, the team is issuing this brief survey and call for evidence to add to this evidence base and help inform the review’s recommendations. Written submissions to this call for evidence would be welcome by 1 October 2021.

The review will identify and tackle unnecessary bureaucracy and its causes from a system-wide perspective. Measures of the success of the review and its implementation will be:

• the resource spent by government and research organisations on administering the grant system should be proportionate and value for money
• a significant reduction in unnecessary reporting and monitoring systems within institutions and the wider system, maintaining only those that add value to our system, and with all parties accepting the resultant reduction in tracking of spending and impact
• a clear refocusing of remaining bureaucracy onto the highest priority areas – including to enable a broad range of excellent research, to reward and incentivise diverse career progression, to promote a culture of transparency and research integrity, and to demonstrate impact so we can make a long-term case for investment in research and innovation

The review recognises that all parties - government, funders, higher education institutions and research organisations - need to play their full part in this agenda. The aim is to reduce bureaucracy, not move it to another part of the system.

The review is focusing primarily on Higher Education Institutions and research organisations. It includes university-business R&D interaction but not research undertaken by business. We are seeking the views of stakeholders from across the UK research sector, who can provide insights into research bureaucracy. This includes those in the devolved administrations and the review team are working closely with policy and funding leads in those territories.

You can find out further information on the review’s purpose and scope in the Terms of Reference.

How to respond

Please respond to the questions that are relevant to you, you do not need to answer all the questions listed. If providing a written response, please include the question you are answering above each response.

Responses to this call for evidence should be submitted by 6:00pm on 1 October 2021.

You can submit your responses by either:

• using our online questionnaire
• emailing bureaucracyreview@beis.gov.uk

Please contact us on 0300 068 6006 if you have any questions.

Confidentially and data protection

Information you provide in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be disclosed in accordance with UK legislation (the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004).

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential please tell us, but be aware that we cannot guarantee confidentiality in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not be regarded by us as a confidentiality request.

We will process your personal data in accordance with all applicable data protection laws. See our privacy policy.

BEIS team may publish the content of your response to this call for evidence to make it available to the public without your personal name and private contact details (e.g. name, email address, etc).

If you say ‘Yes’ you want your response kept confidential.

If you click on ‘No’ in response to the question asking if you would like anything in your response to be kept confidential, we will be able to release the content of your response to the public, but we won’t make your personal name and private contact details publicly available.

Questions

Introductory questions

Question 1: what is your name?

Question 2: what is your email address?

Question 3: what is your job title?

Question 4: what is your organisation?

Question 5: are you responding as an individual or behalf of your organisation?

Question 6: what nation or what region of England of the UK are you based in?

• East Midlands
• East of England
• London
• North East
• North West
• South East
• South West
• West Midlands
• Yorkshire and Humberside
• Scotland
• Wales
• Northern Ireland
• Other (please specify)

Diversity questions

To help us understand how well we are capturing diverse views, we want to ask you some diversity questions. Please note that you can skip these questions if you prefer not to disclose your personal characteristics.

Question 7: are you:

• female
• male
• non-binary
• prefer not to disclose

Question 8: is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?

• yes
• no
• prefer not to disclose

Question 9: what is your ethnic group?

• English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British
• Irish
• Gypsy or Irish Traveller
• any other White background (please describe below)
• White and Black Caribbean
• White and Black African
• White and Asian
• any other Mixed or Multiple ethnic background (please describe below)
• Indian
• Pakistani
• Bangladeshi
• Chinese
• any other Asian background (please describe below)
• African
• Caribbean
• any other Black, African or Caribbean background (please describe below)
• Arab
• any other ethnic group(please describe below)
• other

Question 10: do you consider yourself to have a disability as defined by the Equality Act 2010?

• yes
• no
• prefer not to disclose

Question 11: are you happy for your response to be published?

• yes
• yes, but without identifying information
• no, I want my response to be treated as confidential

Questions relating to unnecessary bureaucracy

Striking the right balance in the management of research funding is difficult. There is much at stake – from protecting the public purse, the effective functioning of our research institutions, to enabling our researchers to fulfil their potential. However, from the stakeholder engagement undertaken since the Review’s launch there is wide recognition that we have accumulated some processes and controls that are not needed or which are overly bureaucratic and time consuming.

The Independent Review of Research Bureaucracy seeks comments and evidence using the questions below which reflect the goals of the review.

Question 12: what are the main sources of unnecessary bureaucracy that need to be taken into account by the independent review? Tick all that apply

• Applying for funding
• Financial audit processes
• Reporting and monitoring
• Security related risk management
• Regulatory requirements
• Digital platforms for the application, management and outcome reporting of awards
• Communications with funders
• Institutional research bureaucracy
• Requirements related to other (non-research) duties
• Other – please specify

Question 13: what specific changes do you think could bring the biggest reduction in unnecessary bureaucracy? Tick all that apply

• Making financial audit, assurance and controls more efficient and/or effective
• Simplifying, aligning and integrating processes and requirements from funders
• Funders acting proportionately with the size of awards
• Greater flexibility and agility in the funding system
• Addressing bureaucracy within individual institutions
• Improving digital platforms and systems
• Better communications, strengthening funder-funded relationships and greater transparency
• Embedding national security considerations and the protections in Trusted Research
• Other changes which benefit researchers and research teams

Question 14: which of the following would make the greatest difference to the application process? Tick all that apply

• Permitting resubmissions for applications to responsive mode schemes that score above a certain threshold
• Reducing the length of applications and ensuring that the amount of information required is proportionate to the size of the grant
• Introducing a two-stage application process where the first stage is comparatively ‘light-touch’
• Reducing the amount of time required for peer review and assessment
• Moving some of the tasks and processes currently required at application stage to the post-award/grant acceptance stage
• Increasing the amount of time between a funding call being announced and the application deadline
• Making changes to the internal demand management processes required of universities by certain funding calls
• Greater alignment of rules and regulations between different funding schemes and organisations
• Simplified or otherwise revised guidance documents

Question 15: which of the following could address the current issues with post-award assurance processes. Tick all that apply

• A more risk-based approach to audit and regulation with better processes not less accountability
• Improved, more systematic collection of data and accountability (for example, around EDI)
• Addressing the aggregated burden on university research of various new legislation and guidance: this includes Trusted Research (and funder requirements based on this guidance), Academic Technology Approval Scheme (ATAS) reform, the National Security and Investment Bill, and new proposed legislation to counter state threats.
• Reforms to assurance and audit which go beyond financial information, including data management, concordats, harassment policies, animal use, proof of ethics, and collaboration with non-academic partners.
• Sector-wide standards on assurance and due diligence: we should move away from doing everything at a project-level
• The Financial Audit Process - retrospectively applying new terms and conditions to awards should end as it makes it exceedingly difficult for Research Offices to comply.
• Due diligence on international partner organisations – the Association of Research Managers and Administrators (ARMA) proposal for a central repository should be advanced with thought given to whether this might cover the broader requirements associated with Trusted Research.
• Export controls are disproportionately burdensome and needs a new sector-level approach.
• Other – please specify

Question 16: please provide examples of funding models, processes and infrastructure that you consider could support the review’s goal of reducing unnecessary research bureaucracy.

Question 17: in addition to your responses to previous questions, would you like to add any further evidence and examples of unnecessary research bureaucracy which could be streamlined?

Question 18: in addition to your responses to previous questions, would you like to add any evidence and examples of best practice in removing or preventing unnecessary research bureaucracy? What lessons can you share in identifying and bringing in effective changes?

Question 19: are there any other issues relating to the review that you wish to bring to our attention?

Next steps

The call for evidence will close at 6:00pm on 1 October 2021.

Responses to this call for evidence will feed into the review’s interim and final reports which will be published online on GOV.UK The interim report is due to be published around the autumn of 2021 with the final report to follow in early 2022.

Please note that evidence relating to the Research Excellence Framework will be shared with the teams leading the Future Research Assessment Programme