Research and analysis

Insights from the UK-wide survey of the Research and Innovation workforce 2024: executive summary

Published 29 August 2025

1. Executive summary 

1.1 Rationale for the R&I workforce survey 

The government’s priority mission is to deliver growth and raise the living standards for working people in every part of the UK. The UK’s modern Industrial Strategy recognizes that innovation, enhancing skills, and accelerating access to talent are essential components for delivering growth and aims to attract, develop and retain the diverse range of talented individuals and teams that are needed to realise the UK’s ambition in high growth sectors. 

The aim of this research project was to undertake the second wave of a survey capturing data across all sectors of the UK’s wider research and innovation (R&I) workforce. This enables the Department for Science Innovation and Technology (DSIT) to improve strategic analysis of current and future R&I policies designed to develop talent and skills, attract people to work and remain in the UK R&I workforce and ensure that the working environment is diverse and inclusive. It also allows DSIT to track progress over time, being able to compare 2024 responses with the first survey wave in 2022. 

1.2 Sample overview 

The survey was conducted online with an open link that could be shared widely. Recruitment took place through a range of channels, largely consisting of mailing lists from recipients of UKRI grant finding and applicants of Innovate UK funding as well as individuals who completed the 2022 wave who agreed to be recontacted, DSIT and wider stakeholder mailing lists, and promotion via social media (see section 2.2.1 for further details). 

The survey aimed to capture the full spectrum of the UK R&I workforce. However, given the recruitment channels used and the lack of a R&I workforce population register, the sample is not representative of the whole UK R&I workforce  . Despite this limitation this remains the largest survey of the R&I workforce in the UK. Workers in some types of work were more likely to be reached, especially those who have previously received UKRI funding or applied for Innovate UK funding. More details on the sample are provided in [section 3]. 

The survey was initially launched on the 30 July 2024  and remained open until the 30 of September. In total, 15,168 respondents took part in the 2024 wave, of which 64% (n= 9,653) worked in higher education, 18% (n = 2,660) in the private sector, and 19% (n = 2,814) in ‘other’ sectors^{[footnote 1]}. 

Compared to the 2022 wave, which recruited 7,519 respondents, the 2024 data was similar in terms of the proportion who worked in higher education (64% 2024; 66% 2022) and the private sector (18% 2024; 22% 2022), though had slightly more working in other sectors (19% 2024; 12% 2022). The 2024 sample also had a lower proportion of British citizens (67% in 2024 vs 75% in 2022). The sample composition of the 1,263 respondents who completed both the 2022 and 2024 surveys and consented to data linking remained highly similar. 

1.3 Key findings 

1.3.1 Type of R&D activity and outputs 

Engagement in research activities 

• Out of the total sample of 15,168 respondents, applied research remained the most common research and innovation activity among respondents in 2024 (79%), followed by basic research (68%) and experimental development (52%). Patterns differed across sectors: while higher education was broadly consistent with the overall results,  experimental development, innovation management and market research were more prominent in the private sector. 

• Educational attainment shaped activity engagement: doctorate holders more often reported involvement in basic (76%) and applied research (83%), compared to those with lower qualifications (46% and 72% respectively for other postgraduate qualifications and 52% and 68% respectively for undergraduate degrees and below). This finding could also reflect that more of those with a doctorate worked in higher education (80% vs 25% with other postgraduate qualifications and 20% with undergraduate or below), emphasising the relationship between sector and demographics is difficult to tease out in a survey. 

Time allocation to research activities 

• Respondents were asked which research or innovation activity took up the largest share of their working time during the last six months (n = 15,168). Applied research took up the largest share of working time for 40% of respondents, followed by basic research (27%), R&D or innovation management (13%), and experimental development (10%). This pattern was consistent with those working in higher education . 

• Private-sector respondents prioritised experimental development (28%), innovation management (24%), and applied research (25%), while only 3% reported basic research as the research activity taking up the largest share of their working time. Respondents in ‘other sectors’ most often reported applied research (38%), followed by innovation management (22%) and basic research (14%). 

• The types of activities occupying the largest share of working time showed little change between 2022 and 2024, indicating consistent allocation patterns across survey waves. 

Technologies 

• In total, 20% of respondents reported working in at least one of the UK’s five critical technology areas (Artificial Intelligence, Engineering Biology, Future Telecommunications, Semiconductors and Quantum Economy). 

• AI was the most common focus (14% of the total sample), particularly among those working in the private sector. 

Research outputs 

• The most cited outputs in 2024 included: new knowledge from research and experimentation (87%), academic publications (86%) and knowledge sharing (72%). 

• Sectoral differences were clear: academic publications (92%) and new knowledge from research or experimentation, discussed with colleagues (87%) were more common in higher education respondents, while for private sector respondents the most common outputs were from new knowledge (65%) and intellectual property and licensing (51%), and prototypes, new products or processes (50%), and in other sectors most common outputs were new knowledge from research or experimentation (75%), data collection, datasets, databases or data models (61%), and sharing new or existing knowledge (61%), 

• Doctorate holders predominantly contributed to academic journals and new knowledge (both 88%), reflecting the emphasis on these outputs in higher education where these outputs were the most commonly reported. In contrast, those with other postgraduate qualifications or below were more likely to report outputs such as prototypes, improved products, or services. 

1.3.2 Sector mobility 

The term “sector” in this survey refers to the broad categories of organisations and institutions that make up the R&I workforce. Sectors were defined to capture the diverse nature of the R&I environment, including both public and private sector entities. The following sectors were identified: 

• Private sector businesses 

• Higher education institutions, e.g. universities 

• Further education colleges e.g. general further education and tertiary colleges, sixth form colleges, specialist colleges 

• Public sector research establishments (PSREs) 

• UKRI research institutes 

• Independent research organisations (IROs) 

• Catapult centres 

• National Health Service (NHS) 

• Local or national government 

• Other public sector 

• Non-profit organisation, charity or community organisation/s 

Other sectors comprised all the other sectors that were not higher education or private. They were aggregated for much of the reporting due to the small sample size within each individual sector (1% - 5% of the sample).   

Sector experience 

• Overall, 55% of respondents reported having worked in one or more sectors besides their current one, with higher education institutions remaining the most common sector to have experience in across the entire sample (78%) followed by the private sector (39%), non-profit organisations, charities, or community organisations (15%). 

• The diversity of sector experience varied by educational attainment and career length. Doctorate holders were more likely to have worked in higher education (93% vs 46% other postgraduate degrees and 33% undergraduate degree or below), and less likely to have worked in the private sector (30% vs 59% other postgraduate degree and 66% undergraduate degree or below). Similarly, those with longer careers were more likely to have worked in higher education (84% for over 10 years vs 38% for 0–5 years and 64% for 6–10 years) and less likely in the private sector (36% for over 10 years vs 54% for 0–5 years and 48% for 6–10 years). This may reflect that doctorate holders and those with longer careers were more likely to currently work in higher education. 

• The longitudinal data shows that the majority of individuals reported being in the same sector in 2024 as the sector they reported in the 2022 survey . Though there was more movement away from ‘other sectors’ (94% remained in higher education, 82% remained in the private sector, 67% remained in other sectors). 

Sector collaboration 

• Collaboration across sectors remains a central feature of R&I work, with patterns varying by current sector. Overall, 84% of respondents reported collaborating with higher education institutions in their current or most recent role, and 65% had worked with private sector businesses, followed by non-profit organisations (47%) and UKRI research institutes (44%). 

• Sector collaboration varied by the current sector that respondents worked in. For example, collaboration with private sector businesses was most common from others in the private sector (84% vs 67% in other sectors and 59% in higher education), collaborations with non-profit were most common from those in the higher education and ‘other’ sector (51% in both higher education and other sectors vs 28% in the private sector), and collaborations with local or national government was more common from those in ‘other’ sectors (43% vs 28% in the private sector and 31% in higher education). 

Sector transition intentions 

• Overall, 47% of respondents indicated they would consider transitioning sectors, with respondents reporting they would transition permanently (33%) or temporarily (20%) ^{[footnote 2]} to another sector. The common motivators were better pay and benefits (51%), career progression and development opportunities (45%), and better work-life balance (41%). 

• Among those who would consider transitioning (n = 7,097), higher education respondents more often considered moving to the private sector (70%) followed by independent research organisations (51%) and UKRI research institutes (48%). Conversely, respondents in the private sector predominantly considered transitioning to higher education (51%), and independent research organisations (43%). Those in other sectors most often chose the private sector (71%) or higher education (57%). 

Reasons for not transitioning 

• A large proportion of respondents (n = 6,371) would not consider transitioning at all (40% overall, 45% in higher education, 40% in private sector, 35% in other sectors). A substantial majority (72%) cited being happy with their current sector, with little variation between sectors. 

• Respondents in higher education who wouldn’t consider moving sector were more likely to report that opportunities to work on a particular topic of interest (23% of respondents) and flexible working hours (14% of respondents) were less available in sectors outside of higher education, compared to those in the private sector (9% and 3% respectively) or other sectors (15% and 9% respectively). 

 1.3.3 International mobility 

Past experience and future intentions to work internationally: 

• Nearly half (47%) of the respondents reported having worked outside of the UK at some point in their career. This was higher among respondents in higher education (53%), compared to private sector respondents (38%), and those in the other sectors (32%). 

• 25% reported having definite plans or would strongly consider working outside of the UK in the next five years. Non-British citizens were more likely to report intentions to work internationally in the future (34%) compared to British citizens (22%). 

• The survey identified a wide variety of destinations for both past international work (among those who had worked outside the UK) and potential future intentions to work abroad (among those who had definite plans or would strongly consider working outside the UK in five years). The United States emerged as the most frequently cited country in both cases (past: 36%, future: 34%). Other most commonly mentioned destinations included Germany (past: 17%, future: 23%), France (past: 11%, future: 13%), Australia (past: 8%, future: 16%) and Canada (past: 7%, future: 15%). 

• Longitudinal analysis showed the number of people who said they would strongly consider or have definite plans to work outside the UK in the next five years statistically significantly decreased from 2022 to 2024 (26% to 22%; n = 1,263; p < .01). This decrease was largely driven by people working in higher education (29% to 24%; n = 851) and other sectors (16% to 12%; n = 185), and not those working in the private sector who stayed constant at 24% (n = 226). 

Drivers and barriers for future mobility: 

• Among those considering working outside of the UK in the next five years (n = 8,166), the most commonly cited reasons were better pay and benefits (55%), improved work-life balance (44%) and access to research funding (44%). 

• Challenges highlighted by non-British respondents while working in the UK, included the level of pay and benefits (41%), career advancement opportunities (18%), accommodation (17%), and immigration or visa requirements (17%). 

• Personal reasons played a big role in both the decision to leave the UK and the choice to stay. Non-British respondents more often selected proximity to family and friends (45% vs 13% British), lower cost of living (39% vs 28% British), and family members’ career or education (19% vs 10% British), for considering international mobility. Similarly, for those choosing to remain in the UK, personal factors were the most frequently selected (60%), followed by being from the UK and not having a strong incentive to move (39%). 

• Longitudinal analyses on the reasons to consider working outside of the UK in the next five years indicated people were generally less likely to select the provided response options in the 2024 wave compared to the 2022 wave (n = 543). These differences were statistically significant for availability of job opportunities (28% to 19%; p < .01), opportunities to work on a particular topic (45% to 39%; p < .05), better work life balance (51% to 44%; p < .01), for family members’ career or education (18% to 13%; p < .05), and better job security (21% to 14%; p < .01). This may be partly because respondents were statistically significantly more likely to select ‘other reasons’ in 2024 compared to 2022 (0% to 11%; p < .01) and due to three new items being added to the 2024 wave survey that were not included in the 2022 wave. 

1.3.4 Grants 

Grant applications and preferences across sectors: 

• In 2024, 92% of respondents reported having applied for R&I grant funding during their careers, likely reflecting the study’s sampling methodology of mailing lists composed from UKRI grant recipients and Innovate UK grant funding applicants. As with the 2022 findings, higher education respondents reported the highest engagement in grant applications (97%), compared to 89% in the private sector and 80% in other sectors. 

• Across the sample, UKRI grant funding was overwhelmingly the most applied for (91%), followed by non-UKRI funding (51%), UKRI PhD funding (48%), and charity funding (47%). Again, this likely reflects the sampling strategy. This ranking remained largely the same among those in higher education. In contrast, among those in the private sector who had applied for grant funding while UKRI grants were still the most frequently applied for (91%), other sources showed a different pattern, with UK government grant funding (41%), Horizon 2020 funding (28%) and UKRI talent schemes / fellowships (21%) being more common. Similarly, respondents working in other sectors also most frequently applied for UKRI grant funding (81%), followed by UK government grant funding (49%), charity funding (40%), Horizon 2020 funding (39%). 

Challenges and recommendations for grant support 

• Respondents who said they had applied for any grant funding for research and innovation in their career (n = 14,003) were also given a free text box to provide suggestions. Common, responses pointed to the simplification of grant application, increased funding and support on applications, and greater transparency in grant selection. 

• Additionally, support and funding for career training as well as better alignment of government policy with R&D and R&I goals were also mentioned; including more straightforward immigration between the UK and EU   , funding for clinical academics, and enhancements to the peer review mechanism (e.g. higher quality feedback and more consistent double-blind reviews). 

1.3.5 Grant funding processes 

Perceptions of R&I funding processes 

• Of the respondents who were involved directly in research (n = 10,324)^{[footnote 3]} half agreed that their research organisation communicates (i.e. Universities, PSREs, Independent research organisations etc.) R&I funding processes well (50%) while 26% disagreed. 48% of respondents agreed that these internal processes are necessary and proportionate, 30% disagreed. Similarly, 44% agreed and 33% disagreed that the processes of public R&I funders for administering grants are necessary and proportionate, and 44% agreed these systems were well-communicated while 28% disagreed. 

Time allocation and administrative burden 

• Respondents who were involved directly in research reported that they divide a large proportion of their working week on research and non-research tasks. On average, based on their time spent in a typical week, these respondents spent 37% of their time on ‘other activities’. These activities included teaching, leadership and management responsibilities, academic networking and dissemination activities, other administrative responsibilities. Producing research took 32% of their time on average, while preparing funding applications accounted for 11%, and grant management related administrative tasks accounted for 9% of their time. 

• Time allocation varied by sector, most likely due to the nature of jobs. Respondents in the private sector spend more time on producing research (51%) compared to those in higher education (31%) and other sectors (39%). Respondents in different sectors spend different amount of time on ‘other activities’ (15% private sector vs 38% higher education and 26% other sectors). This most likely reflects the nature of jobs in the higher education sector where teaching is a main activity. 

• Longer career lengths and more senior roles were associated with a shift away from direct research, towards leadership and administrative activities. 

Barriers to grant applications 

• Respondents who had not applied for specific funding sources cited various barriers for not doing so. For UKRI, Research Council, or Innovate UK grants, 34% of respondents said grant applications were not required in their role and 18% of respondents reported they were unaware of grant opportunities. 

• For Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe funding, respondents cited the complexity of application processes as main barriers (27% and 24% respectively) along with the process being too long (20% and 19% respectively) and not being aware of opportunities (20% and 18% respectively). 

1.3.6 Workplace culture 

Organisational support and inclusivity 

• The majority of respondents agreed that their organisations foster collaboration with other organisations (77%) and promote diversity and inclusion (75%). 

• However, disparities emerged in perceptions of organisational culture supporting diversity and inclusion. White respondents were more likely to agree that their organisation fosters diversity and inclusion (78%). The percentage goes down for non-white respondents: Black (71%), Asian (71%), mixed (69%) and other ethnic groups (66%). Similarly, those with workplace-limiting disabilities reported lower agreement levels (67%) than their non-disabled counterparts (78%). 

Barriers to productivity 

• Balancing core R&I activities with administrative requirements remains a challenge with 3 in 4 respondents (74%) agreeing with the statement “Administrative tasks and processes take up too much time at my organisation”. A larger proportion of higher education respondents (82%) agreed with this statement compared to private sector respondents (82% and 50% respectively ). 

Confidence in challenging organisational norms 

• While 60% of respondents reported their organisations’ culture enables them to perform their best work, this was higher in the private sector (85%) than in higher education (52%). Confidence in challenging organisational norms was more prevalent in the private sector (84%), but lower among women (50% vs 57% for men), and Asian, mixed and other ethnic groups (45%, 46%, 45% respectively, compared to 56% for White and Black respondents). 

Workplace behaviour and support 

• Bullying remains a concern, with 23% of respondents reporting they had experienced or witnessed incidents in the last 12 months. This was 29% among women and 35% among those with workplace-limiting disabilities. 

• Open-text responses that referenced bullying stressed the need for better support systems, improved senior management practices and greater accountability for inappropriate behaviour especially by senior staff. 

Suggested improvements 

• Key suggestions from respondents to enhance their workplace culture included reducing bureaucracy, ensuring more consistent funding and investment, improving management and leadership practices and fostering a more collaborative and supportive working environment. Increasing diversity, particularly within senior leadership roles, was also a recurring theme in the free text responses, reflecting ongoing challenges in achieving fully inclusive workplaces. 

1.3.7 Skills 

In this survey, the term ‘skills’ includes technology, analysis, advanced digital skills, commercial skills, communication, leadership, project management and specialist knowledge. Respondents were given a 1 to 5 scale (from “not at all important” (1) through “moderately important” (3), to “essential” (5)) with responses from 4 to 5 considered important. 

Skills needs for current role 

• Overall, most skills were considered important to respondents’ current roles. The most important skills were communication and working with people (94%), followed by project management (85%), analysis (83%), and leadership (83%). 

• The skills rated as important varied by the current sector the individual worked in, where the largest difference was in commercial skills, which were rated as much more important for those working in the private sector (80%) compared to other sectors (36%) and higher education (20%). 

• There were also differences in the skills rated as important by career length, where those with a longer career length (over 10 years) more often considered leadership, specialist knowledge, project management and analysis as important compared to those with a shorter career length (0-5 years and 6-10 years). Those with a shorter career more often considered commercial skills as important. However, it’s worth noting that those with a longer career length more frequently worked in higher education, whereas those with a shorter career more frequently worked in the private sector, making it difficult to determine whether career length or sector is driving the observed differences. 

• The longitudinal analysis of the 2022 and 2024 waves found statistically significant differences for four skills: learning to use a new technology (55% in 2022 vs 62% in 2024, p < 0.001), advanced digital skills such as programming (43% in 2022 vs 47% in 2024, p < 0.001), commercial skills (29% in 2022 vs 33% in 2024, p < 0.01), and specialist knowledge including technical knowledge (89% in 2022 vs 82% in 2024, p < 0.001). 

Recent training and development 

• Training participation remains high across sectors, with 93% reporting they have taken part in at least one type of training or learning and development activity in the last 12 months. There was a preference for informal knowledge sharing (66% internally and 60% externally) and external courses (60%). 

• Formal training was more common in higher education (57%) and other sectors (56%) compared to the private sector (27%). Those with postgraduate qualifications tended to report higher levels of engagement in external courses and self-directed learning and interestingly, while these increase with career length, informal knowledge sharing was more popular among those in the earlier stages of their careers. 

Government support for training 

• Reduced workload and time pressure to access opportunities (64%) and financial support to access opportunities (57%) were the most common support that could be offered to make it easier to access opportunities to train, retrain, or upskill. 

• This varied by sector, where those in the higher education sector more often said that a reduced workload would make it easier to access opportunities (72% compared to other sector 61% and private sector 37%) whereas they less often selected financial support to access opportunities. 

• Government support for training also varied by highest educational attainment and career length. Those with a doctorate more often selected a reduced workload or time pressure (70% compared to 50% other postgraduate qualifications and 47% undergraduate or below) whereas they less often selected all of the other options. Similarly, those with a longer career more often selected a reduced workload or time pressure (66% over 10 years, 56% 6-10 years, 54% 0-5 years), and less often selected all of the other options. Again, this could reflect the sample composition where those with a doctorate or longer careers tended to more frequently work in higher education. 

1. Other sectors comprised all the other sectors that were not higher education or private. They were grouped due to the small sample size within each individual sector (1%-5% of the sample). The other sectors were: independent research organisations (IROs), Local or national government, National Health Service, non-profit organisation, charity or community organisation/s, other public and independent organisations, public sector research establishments (PSREs), UKRI research institutes, and ‘other’.  ↩

2. These % do not sum to 47% as respondents could select both “Yes permanently” and “Yes temporarily” to transitioning sectors.  ↩

3. Defined as those who were currently doing research as part of a qualification, worked in higher education, public sector research establishments, UKRI research institutes, independent research organisations or catapult centres, and who had applied for or received any grant funding. ↩