Executive summary
Background
In early 2022, UKRI set out its draft equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) strategy.
It outlined UKRI’s ambition for an inclusive research and innovation system and its long-term commitment to achieving this aim.
This ambition is reflected in the government’s Research and Development (R&D) People and Culture Strategy (GOV.UK), published in July 2021, which called for the sector to take action to a create a “more inclusive, dynamic, productive and sustainable UK research and development sector in which a diversity of people and ideas can thrive”.
Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) has been an organisational priority since UKRI was formed, and its work in this area builds on earlier work of the 7 research councils, Research England, and Innovate UK.
The development of UKRI’s EDI strategy has been influenced by wide-ranging engagement, discussion, and challenge from people and organisations across the research and innovation system, including input from UKRI colleagues.
An open consultation on the draft strategy was launched in early 2022. In spring 2022, Pye Tait Consulting, an independent research agency, was commissioned to undertake an analysis of the consultation responses.
Taking into account the feedback received, UKRI will revise and finalise its EDI strategy and associated EDI action plans.
Aim and objectives
The overarching aim of this research was to analyse all responses received to the consultation and to report the outcomes to UKRI. Specific objectives were to:
- conduct an objective and comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analysis of all responses to the consultation
- identify and categorise themes, focus areas or questions
- identify differences in response patterns between key stakeholder groups and demographic groups
- report on the findings
Approach to consultation and analysis
UKRI developed the consultation questionnaire and promoted its engagement hub (an online portal open to all) as the primary route through which to submit responses. Some responses were received through 2 additional mechanisms.
1. A ‘closed’ engagement hub for UKRI staff to upload responses on behalf of stakeholders through ‘business as usual’ engagement activities.
2. Offline responses received by email or letter.
The consultation window was open from 13 January to 28 March 2022. In total, 331 responses were received.
UKRI shared all the responses with Pye Tait Consulting, who then undertook the independent analysis.
Responses were analysed at an overall level and by sub-group. Qualitative analysis was undertaken in 3 stages, with responses coded according to a framework finalised in conjunction with UKRI.
Note: One of the main caveats of this consultation is that it is not necessarily representative of the wider research and innovation population.
The implication of self-selection bias is that an assessment of views can only be made for the respondents who chose to participate and will not represent the entire target population.
Of the 331 unique responses received, just over one-third (34% or 112) were submitted by organisations or groups and just under two-thirds (65% or 216) were from individuals.
Around 1 in 6 (individual) responses (17% or 57) are from UKRI staff. A more detailed breakdown of the profile of respondents is provided in Appendix 1.
Key findings
Overall, there is positivity among responses, and the strategy is welcomed as being well-intentioned.
There are some areas of dissatisfaction, particularly in instances where the strategy is felt to be too vague or wordy and would benefit from greater detail or specificity.
Nearly half of all responses are ambivalent about the 4 cornerstones, and uncertainty is expressed as to how these link to the strategy’s ambition and objectives.
However, there is clear support and willingness from partners and stakeholders to be involved further. These themes are discussed in the following sections.
Presentation, accessibility, and structure
The majority feel that the intent of the strategy and objectives are clear.
Greater clarity, however, would be welcomed for specific terms or phrases used throughout the draft document.
Some respondents suggest that these could be placed into a glossary to enable a shared understanding.
In addition, respondents commonly mention that the draft strategy is overly long or verbose, and suggest addressing this through a more concise document, the use of plain English, and summaries at the start of each section. These tools would benefit and enhance the strategy and its usage.
Accessibility has been trouble-free for most, although a small number identify issues with accessing the document in the available format and using screen readers. Some suggest a more visual presentation would also help to increase accessibility.
In terms of the structure of the document, there is some confusion among a minority (21% of those commenting, 25) around the inter-relationship between the strategy’s ambition, cornerstones for changes, and strategic objectives. Respondents suggest the links between these could be more explicit.
Clarity and specificity
Respondents applaud the strategy’s ambitious intent and welcome the investment being made in this area by UKRI.
There is some concern, typically raised by around 15 to 35% of those commenting, that clearer objectives and goals within the strategy are required.
Feedback suggests that the strategy is, in some places, too vague or broad, and respondents would welcome specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound (SMART) actions. This would enable progress against aims to be monitored, and provide a clear target of what, ultimately, success might look like.
While the strategy seeks to be at a high level and inclusive of all individuals, there is feedback, from around 10% of those commenting (predominantly individuals), that specific groups and protected characteristics ought to be explicitly mentioned in the draft strategy.
Willingness to be involved
Between 60% and 66% of respondents provide comment on the 4 objectives, broadly welcoming the increased transparency and communication with partners set out in the draft strategy.
The greater accountability of senior leaders is also applauded and there is support from respondents to help enact this.
Respondents understand and acknowledge that data collection is an important step that is needed to be able to then take targeted action.
Organisations in particular state they will be pleased to work directly with UKRI to align their data collection and policies.
Collaboration between UKRI and its partners is viewed as critical to the strategy’s successful implementation. This could be facilitated through networks among EDI leads, through which best practice could be shared around (for example) on topics such as recruitment or training.
Case studies could also help to demonstrate positive change that is happening in the sector.
Moving in the right direction
On the whole, the draft EDI strategy is welcomed and perceived as well-intentioned with an emphasis on issues of importance for the research and innovation community.
Respondents appreciate that UKRI is leading by example and, through recognition of its unique position, will help to influence wider change across the research and innovation sector by acting as a role model.
The strategy, respondents argue, shows that UKRI is moving in the right direction, and many appreciate the ambitious, admirable goals that are being set to help promote inclusivity.
A minority (typically fewer than 10% of those commenting on a question) perceive the strategy’s development to be outside of UKRI’s remit, instead suggesting the focus of the organisation should be purely on research and innovation.
These comments arise from the same respondents who choose to reiterate this point across different questions.
Suggested actions
Based on respondents’ feedback, priority suggested actions for how the strategy could be improved include:
- use of plain English
- incorporation of summaries and visuals
- incorporation of a glossary
- greater clarity on how ambition, cornerstones, and objectives link together
- greater clarity on actions and outcomes
- incorporation of SMART objectives as part of specific action plans
- greater clarity on the role of partners in the roll-out of actions related to the EDI strategy
- specifying how UKRI will hold itself to account as it delivers against the strategy
- consideration of naming specific underrepresented groups
- outlining proposed approach to data collection
More detail on these points is contained in ’Summary of actions suggested by respondents’ below.
Introduction
Background
UKRI’s 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.
Its 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.
Published by BEIS in 2020, the UK government set out its plans in its Research and Development Roadmap to revitalise the UK’s system of science, research, and innovation to release its potential.
This roadmap aims to nurture a diverse culture where people with a wide range of experiences and insights are confident to lead, participate and engage, recognising that attracting, retaining and developing talented, diverse people and teams are essential to delivering this vision.
The plan to increase the attractiveness and sustainability of careers throughout the research and development workforce, not just for researchers, but also for technicians, innovators, entrepreneurs and practitioners, was detailed in the government’s 2021 Research and Development People and Culture Strategy.
Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) has been an organisational priority since UKRI was formed, and its work in this area builds on earlier work of the 7 research councils, Research England, and Innovate UK.
The importance of EDI to UKRI in its future vision is outlined in its 2022 to 2027 strategy, where diversity is one of the 4 underpinning ‘principles for change’.
UKRI’s EDI strategy
In early 2022, UKRI set out its draft equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) strategy. It outlined UKRI’s ambition for an inclusive research and innovation system and its long-term commitment to achieving this aim.
The development of the strategy has been driven by wide-ranging engagement, discussion and challenge from a wide variety of individuals and organisations across the research and innovation system, including input from UKRI colleagues.
The draft strategy describes UKRI’s ambition for a research and innovation system where:
- everyone feels included, is heard, respected and able to be their real self
- different people, ideas, ways of thinking, skills and perspectives are valued
- people and ideas thrive, are supported and encouraged
- everyone can participate in, contribute to, and benefit from its investments in research and innovation
The draft strategy contains 4 cornerstones for change that describe how UKRI will create the conditions for sustainable change and continue its EDI journey and outlines 4 strategic objectives, which are underpinned by these cornerstones.
Together, these provide a framework to anchor and enable the development of EDI action plans by councils, functions, and teams across UKRI.
In September 2022, UKRI published its corporate plan, as well as publishing strategic delivery plans for each council.
UKRI’s corporate plan sets out its ambitions for the next 3 years, while the strategic delivery plans outline the part each council will play in delivering the wider UKRI mission, as described in its 5-year strategy published in March 2022.
Consultation on the draft EDI strategy
An open consultation on the draft strategy was launched on 13 January 2022 and closed on 28 March 2022. The consultation was open to anyone interested or involved in research and innovation, either as an individual, organisation or group.
In spring 2022, Pye Tait Consulting, an independent research agency, was commissioned to undertake an analysis of the consultation responses. This report presents the findings from the analysis of all responses received to the consultation.
Taking into account the feedback received, UKRI will revise and finalise its EDI strategy and associated action plans. Moving forward, the EDI action plans are intended to be ‘living’ documents that will be updated through ongoing consultation with stakeholders.
Aim and objectives
The overarching aim of this research was to analyse all responses received to the consultation and to report the outcomes to UKRI. Specific objectives were to:
- conduct an objective and comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analysis of all responses to the consultation
- identify and categorise themes, focus areas or questions
- identify differences in response patterns between key stakeholder groups and demographic groups
- report on the findings
Methodology
Consultation approach
UKRI developed the consultation questionnaire, which comprised 5 core sections, to seek views on different aspects of the strategy:
- about you
- accessibility
- ambition
- cornerstones for change
- strategic objectives
The structure of this report mirrors that of the consultation.
The primary route through which to submit responses was UKRI’s engagement hub (an online portal open to all). Some responses were received through 2 additional mechanisms:
- A ‘closed’ engagement hub for UKRI staff to upload responses on behalf of stakeholders.
- Offline responses received by email or letter.
The engagement hub was, initially, the primary route for submitting responses. As the consultation went forward, UKRI adapted this to facilitate inclusion of responses from individuals, groups and organisations that were not able to respond using the hub by introducing the ‘closed’ site for UKRI staff to submit responses on behalf of stakeholders, and also to receive responses submitted by email and letter.
The consultation window was open from 13 January to 28 March 2022.
In total, 331 complete responses were received, of which 304 were submitted through the engagement hub, 10 through the closed engagement hub, and 17 offline responses by email and letter.
UKRI shared all the responses with Pye Tait Consulting, who then undertook the independent analysis. This report contains the independent analysis of all responses received to the consultation by all 3 mechanisms.
Approach to the analysis
Before undertaking a detailed analysis, responses were first reviewed and cleaned. This process involved checking for campaign responses (typically identical responses circulated by an individual or organisation), errors or duplicate responses. None were found, and the 331 unique responses were taken forward for onward analysis.
Quantitative analysis of closed consultation questions was undertaken in SNAP software. Responses were analysed at an overall level, and subsequently sub-group analysis was undertaken to explore any notable differences (of at least 10%) by:
- respondent type (individual versus organisation)
- organisation type
- individual respondents:
- age
- sex
- gender identity
- term used to describe their gender
- ethnicity
- declared conditions, illnesses, or disabilities
Qualitative analysis of responses received to the open-ended questions was undertaken by Pye Tait Consulting in 3 successive stages, as indicated in the figure below.
On completion of each pass, outcomes were discussed with UKRI before moving forward to the next phase.
Pye Tait Consulting’s approach to the qualitative analysis and coding was:
- first pass: high-level review of all responses and identification of the broad themes and sentiment across responses
- second pass: to identify the key themes arising to each question. Based on this, a coding framework was developed by Pye Tait Consulting, with checks for inter and intra-coding consistency, and finalised in collaboration with UKRI
- third pass: a comprehensive review to code each response according to the coding framework, to identify frequency of themes overall and by respondent sub-group
Interpretations and limitations
One of the main caveats of this consultation is that it is not necessarily representative of the wider research and innovation population.
The implication of self-selection bias is that an assessment of views can only be made for the respondents who chose to participate and will not represent the entire target population, but rather a small subset. As such, the findings should be interpreted with caution.
It should be noted that some organisational responses were collaborative responses with contributions from multiple organisations.
In addition, some organisations spent a great deal of time and effort in organising, for example, workshops to gather feedback on UKRI’s draft EDI strategy.
This was welcome but it should be noted we can only report on the summary response provided as not all the material from those discussions was contained in organisations’ consultation responses.
Organisational responses have not been weighted in the analysis. The reader is advised to bear these points in mind when interpreting the report.
Note that, due to rounding, some charts and tables may not add up to 100%.
To align with the way UKRI reports data, some response categories have been grouped prior to undertaking cross-tabulation analysis. This re-categorisation is outlined in Appendix 1.
Due to some small sample sizes resulting from the cross-tabulation analysis, some numbers are suppressed and are not reported on in certain tables and figures in cases where there are 5 or fewer responses per category.
Further to this, some codes developed during the analysis were noted by 5 or fewer respondents and these have not been included in the report due to suppression.
Notable differences between respondent sub-group are highlighted at relevant points in the report. Where no comparison is drawn, it should be inferred that no substantial difference between respondent sub-group exists.
Respondent profile overview
Of the 331 unique responses received, just over one-third (34% or 112) were submitted by organisations or groups and just under two-thirds (65% or 216) were from individuals. (3 respondents did not answer this question.)
A list of the 104 responding organisations that were willing to share their name is provided in Appendix 2.
Around 1 in 6 responses (17% or 57) are from UKRI staff.
Respondents that said they represent the views of an organisation or group were asked about their organisation type.
Around half (48%) of organisations are higher education institutes (HEIs), while just under 1 in 6 (15%) are charities or third sector bodies (including responding learned societies and national academies).
The 10% of ‘other’ organisational and group respondents included project teams from some of the research councils, Doctoral Training Partnerships, and professional bodies.
The breakdown of organisational respondent types was:
- business 2%
- charity or third sector body 15%
- higher education institute 48%
- other educational or research setting 6%
- public sector body 7%
- representative group or collective 11%
- trade union 1%
- other 10%
The base was 90 respondents, and not all organisational respondents chose to answer this question.
A more detailed breakdown of individual respondents is provided in Appendix 1.
Accessibility
Key points were:
- 55% agree and 23% disagree the draft EDI strategy’s content and wording is easy to understand
- 49% agree and 26% disagree the draft EDI strategy’s format and layout makes it easy to read
- feedback that the strategy is too long, verbose or repetitive (40% of those commenting or 59 respondents)
- some (33%, 49) experienced issues with using the current file or format
- others (21%, 31) say the current structure makes it hard to find specific information
- visuals and graphics would help to improve accessibility (15%, 22), as might summaries for each section (14%, 21)
- a small number (6) report issues using assistive technology to access the document
The first set of consultation questions asked respondents about the accessibility of UKRI’s draft EDI strategy. The draft strategy was, and at time of writing, still is, available online and could be printed as a document or saved as a PDF file.
Content, layout, format, and wording
All respondents were firstly asked for their thoughts on the extent to which the content and wording of the draft EDI strategy was easy to understand.
Over half (55%) agree or strongly agree, while around a quarter (23%) disagree or strongly disagree. The remaining 22% neither agree nor disagree.
| Respondents | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Disagree | Strongly disagree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All individual respondents (214) | 9% | 43% | 22% | 13% | 13% |
| Age 29 and under (11) | 0% | 55% | 9% | 27% | 9% |
| Age 30-39 (43) | 5% | 51% | 23% | 9% | 12% |
| Age 40-49 (58) | 16% | 48% | 19% | 10% | 7% |
| Age 50-59 (60) | 13% | 47% | 22% | 10% | 8% |
| Age 60+ (25) | 0% | 24% | 24% | 28% | 24% |
| Unknown age (17) | 6% | 6% | 41% | 6% | 41% |
Base: 214 individual respondents. Source: UKRI consultation, 2022.
Agreement levels are slightly higher among organisations (64%) compared to individuals (52%). Disagreement levels are noticeably higher among individual respondents aged over 60 (52% disagree to some extent) and with only a minority of this age group (12%) agreeing to some extent.
Meanwhile, disagreement levels are slightly higher among individuals who are not UKRI staff (29%) than those who are (16%), although agreement levels are similar (51% and 54%, respectively).
Similarly, all respondents were asked for their views on the format and layout of the draft EDI strategy.
Around half (49%) agree or strongly agree that the format and layout make it easy to read, while about a quarter (26%) disagree or strongly disagree. The remaining 25% neither agree nor disagree.
Disagreement levels are slightly higher among organisations (30%) compared to individuals (23%), and particularly so among representative groups or collectives, public sector bodies and other organisational types (50% of these disagree or strongly disagree).
| Respondents | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Disagree | Strongly disagree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All respondents (300) | 7% | 42% | 25% | 17% | 9% |
| Individuals (212) | 10% | 41% | 26% | 12% | 11% |
| Organisations (88) | 1% | 43% | 25% | 27% | 3% |
| Organisation type | |||||
| Higher education institute (40) | 3% | 48% | 35% | 15% | 0% |
| Charity or third sector body (14) | 0% | 50% | 14% | 36% | 0% |
| Representative group or collective (10) | 0% | 30% | 20% | 50% | 0% |
| Public sector body (6) | 0% | 33% | 17% | 17% | 33% |
| Other (8) | 0% | 50% | 25% | 25% | 0% |
Base: 300 respondents. Source: UKRI consultation, 2022.
Across both these 2 questions, there is little difference in responses from individuals with a known disability compared to those from individuals with no known disability.
Respondents were provided the opportunity to comment further on the accessibility of the EDI strategy, and 149 responses were received, of which just under half were from organisations.
The most frequently raised point, noted by two-fifths (40%, or 59 respondents) of those commenting, is from those who believe the strategy is either too long, too verbose, or too repetitive.
Several respondents say that it is not accessible for people with learning difficulties, such as dyslexia, and that its wordiness makes it difficult to understand what is being said.
One third (33%, 49) of those commenting discuss problems they have experienced in relation to the format of the file.
Some are concerned with the reliance on hyperlinks in the text, others would prefer to read the strategy in a different file format besides the web page, while others comment that the web page format means certain tools are unavailable (such as a page count function) that make it difficult to keep their place.
Around half of such comments are made by organisations. Some organisations add that the strategy is difficult to find on the website.
Just over one-quarter (26%, 39) of those commenting say that the draft EDI strategy is vague and that the use of language makes the document inaccessible.
This point is sometimes linked to the length of the document, but respondents who mention vague language suggest that the strategy uses too many buzzwords, or management speak. The use of clear language and plain English is suggested.
Around one-fifth (21%, 31) of those commenting perceive there to be general structural issues with the document, with most of such respondents being organisations.
Such comments typically note that the draft EDI’s structure means it is difficult to find specific information.
Approximately 1 in 6 (15%, 22) commenting say that the use of visual aids would be welcome as an aide-memoire or engagement tool, particularly to break up long pieces of text.
Additionally, some respondents ask whether information might be presented in audio, video or multimedia formats to aid accessibility.
Around 1 in 7 (14%, 21) of those commenting suggest that each section should be preceded with a short summary, and that the overall strategy would be more accessible if published with a concise executive summary.
Some 13% (19) of those commenting mention specifically that the lack of clarity or specificity on concrete actions to be taken reduces the accessibility of the document.
Other points raised in relation to the draft strategy’s accessibility include those noting that:
- they have no concerns about its accessibility (mentioned by 7% of those commenting, 10 respondents)
- the glossary could be improved (4%, 6)
- the relationship between cornerstones and objectives is unclear (3%, 4)
Use of assistive technology
Respondents were asked whether they used assistive technology to read the EDI strategy. Most (98%) had not done so, while 2% confirmed they had.
Use of assistive technology was slightly higher among individual respondents with a known disability (4%) than those with no known disability (1%).
Use of assistive technology to read the EDI strategy, by disability was:
- all individual respondents (208) 1% yes, 99% no
- no known disability (126) 1% yes, 99% no
- known disability (55) 4% yes, 96% no
- not disclosed (27) 100% no
Those stating they had used assistive technology were asked if there were any issues. Of the 6 commenting in this regard, issues were experienced with:
- using screen reader software, noting that the strategy could not be listened to from the web page and had to be downloaded as a PDF to do so (3 comments)
- not being able to access the Adobe Acrobat reader function because the PDF was locked (1)
- the PDF accessibility being low (2)
One comments that assistive technology for zooming in and out worked well. Another welcomed being asked the question as this is often left out.
One respondent notes the lack of visual representation or infographics, and the lack of accessibility options for screen readers in relation to text layout, hinder accessibility for those with visual impairments.
Ambition
Key points were:
- 64% agree and 36% disagree the strategy’s proposed ambition is clear
- several (37% or 48 of those commenting) would welcome additional clarity around aims, objectives, and what success will look like
- others (16%, 21) suggest a timeframe of actions is required
- on notable strengths, many (40%, 102 respondents) believe the ambition is well- intentioned
- some (31%, 79) say the draft strategy’s ambition will help promote inclusion
- as a suggested improvement, more specific timelines and outcomes are requested (32%, 82) and to set out what success looks like (25%, 64)
- a core group of respondents (average size 24, equivalent to 7% of all respondents, mainly individuals) here, and across all questions, suggest it is outside UKRI’s remit to develop an EDI strategy
UKRI’s first EDI strategy sets out its ambition for an inclusive research and innovation system and its long-term commitment to achieving a research and innovation system where:
- everyone feels included, is heard, respected and able to be their real self
- different people, ideas, ways of thinking, skills and perspectives are valued
- people and ideas thrive, are supported and encouraged
- everyone can participate in, contribute to and benefit from its investments in research and innovation
Clarity of strategy’s ambition
Respondents were asked about the clarity of the EDI strategy’s proposed ambition. Around two-thirds (64%) agree the ambition is clear, while the remainder (36%) disagree.
Agreement levels are slightly higher among individuals (68%) than organisations (53%), and among individuals who are UKRI staff (75%) than non-UKRI staff (65%).
Agreement about the clarity of the EDI strategy’s proposed ambition, by individuals and organisations, was:
- all respondents (301) 64% yes 36% no
- individuals (213) 68% yes 32% no
- organisations (88) 53% yes 47% no
- individual type
- UKRI staff (55) 75% yes 25% no
- non-UKRI staff (161) 65% yes 35% no
- organisation type
- higher education institute (43) 58% yes 42% no
- charity or third sector body (14) 50% yes 50% no
- representative group or collective (9) 33% yes 67% no
- public sector body (6) 83% yes 17% no
- other (8) 50% yes 50% no
Slight differences also exist between other sub-groups of respondents.
Agreement levels relating to the clarity of the strategy’s ambition are higher among those with no known disability (75%) than those with a known disability (62%).
Meanwhile, agreement levels are higher among White individuals (74%) compared to those from a minority ethnic group (61%).
Agreement levels are also slightly lower (50%) among those who describe their gender identity as ‘other’ or who prefer to self-describe compared to those describing themselves as a man (68%) or a woman (78%).
Opportunity was provided for respondents to outline briefly what details they report are unclear, and 131 comments were received.
Of these, just over a quarter (27%, 36) believe the ambitions are clear, but offer suggestions on how to improve the content further. The remaining 73% (95) do not feel the strategy’s ambitions are clear enough, and they provide further explanations as to why.
Of all those commenting (131), around 2 in 5 (37% or 48 respondents) suggest there are no clear objectives or goals outlined within the proposed ambitions, claiming there is a lack of clarity surrounding the overall aims of the strategy, and specifically what success looks like, and how this will be achieved.
They also mention that more detail is required, particularly to include definitions for terms such as inclusivity, diversity, equality and “real self”.
This is noted more frequently by minority ethnic groups (43%, 9 of 21) than White respondents (29%, 13 of 41).
Just under one-third (32%, 42) of those commenting believe the strategy’s ambition is too vague, broad or ambiguous.
For example, such respondents feel that statements such as “by everyone, for everyone” are not clear as to who is involved, or who this strategy directly affects or benefits. Men (43%, 13 of 30) share this opinion more so than women (28%, nine of 32).
The absence of a proposed timeframe or action plan is concerning for 1 in 6 (16%, 21) of those providing further comments, who note it is unclear as to how, or when, success will be achieved if no measurable actions or outcomes are included.
They feel that this uncertainty would be detrimental to the overall delivery of the strategy, with organisations in particular noting that they will therefore not be aware of what is expected of them.
Two organisations suggest using SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) actions for clearer articulation of the strategy ambitions. One adds that it would be helpful to have an outline of the vision of what UKRI should look like in 2027.
Around 15% (20) believe the length of the document is excessive and that, in general, the proposed ambitions are difficult to read or engage with because of this. Organisations (20%, 6 of 59) mention this more frequently than individuals (8%, 6 of 72).
3 organisations think that the ambition is too generic and lacks reference to various types of inequality and minority groups, for example, socioeconomic inequality, geographical imbalance of opportunities, neurodiversity, religion, people with disabilities and LGBTQ+ groups.
Some individuals (9%, 12) comment that the strategy language is too political and perceive the proposed ambitions to be outside UKRI’s remit.
Further to this, an additional group of individuals (6%, 8) believe the language uses too much jargon and political buzzwords, which could cause the document to lose sincerity or gravitas.
It should be noted that there is a core of individual respondents who, making the same point across all consultation questions, believe that UKRI should not be developing an EDI strategy.
These respondents typically hold the view that the strategy is not within UKRI’s remit, is too political, and argue that financial resources should instead be dedicated to research and innovation rather than developing an EDI strategy.
While not a ‘campaign response’ (defined as batched identical responses), this group all, independently, hold the same viewpoint, using different wording, but ultimately making the same point.
These responses appear across questions from between 15 and 40 respondents, with an average size of 24 respondents (equivalent to 7% of all responses received), and mainly comprises individuals (95%-plus) who are not UKRI staff (95%-plus), with most being aged 40+ (60-70%), or male (70-80%).
Notable strengths
A total of 253 respondents gave their opinion on what they liked most about the EDI strategy’s proposed ambition. Of these, most provide positive comment, although just under one-fifth (19%) comment otherwise.
Two-fifths (40%, 102) of all those commenting believe that, overall, the proposed ambitions are well-intentioned, stating that the strategy’s ambition has good emphasis on important issues and demonstrates that UKRI is moving in the right direction to foster inclusivity in the research and innovation environment.
Organisations (52%) share these opinions more so than individuals (33%).
Respondents further note that the EDI strategy contains admirable goals (evidence-based goals, transparency, inclusivity, increasing diversity in the research and innovation ecosystem), and one-fifth (21%, 53) feel the strategy contains clear, quality ambitions that will be welcome in the research and innovation community.
A further 6% (16 respondents) specifically comment that they are thankful for the attention UKRI is giving to EDI, noting that system changes will be needed to ensure involvement and collaboration of all groups of people in the future.
One organisation explicitly welcomes the collaborative approach presented, and that UKRI is acknowledging that progressing EDI is a shared endeavour across multiple stakeholders, and creating sustainable change is a long-term commitment.
Around a third (31%, 79) believe that the strategy’s ambition promotes inclusion, encourages compassion and demonstrates a people-centric way of thinking.
Meanwhile, just over one fifth (21%, 53) note that the ambitions have the potential to provide equal, equitable opportunities for all researchers and to directly address historical imbalances (in other words, sexism against women in research positions, racism, biases against the socioeconomically disadvantaged).
A further 19% (49 respondents) commend the document for being inclusive and respectful of all peoples and backgrounds.
One in 10 (10%, 25) specifically comment that they appreciate the slogan “a research and innovation system by everyone, for everyone”, and they note it is clear, impactful and something that the public can get behind.
Of the individuals that shared this opinion, this is more common among women than men (12% versus 1%) and among those aged below 50 (10% versus 2% aged 50+).
Although asked to comment on what they liked most about the strategy’s ambition, some (19%, 48, primarily individuals) took the opportunity to comment otherwise, with around half of these saying there is nothing they like, perceiving the development of the strategy to be outside the remit of UKRI, or that the content is not worth spending of taxpayers’ money.
Others believe that the strategy’s proposed ambition:
- lacks sufficient detail (mentioned by 5% or 13 respondents; in other words, tangible actions, information on how data is collected, how success will be achieved)
- will distract from research and innovation (4%, 9)
- will be exclusionary to non-minority groups (4%, 10)
- is too political and not what UKRI should focus on (3%, 8)
Suggested areas of improvement
A total of 256 respondents offer suggestions on how to improve the proposed ambitions, or comment on whether there are any significant gaps. This includes 168 individuals and 88 organisations.
Just under a third (32%, 82) of those commenting recommend that a succinct timeline of actions and list of tangible outcomes should be included within the proposed ambitions, and specifically a quarter (25%, 64) note that it would be beneficial to highlight what success looks like and how exactly this will be achieved.
Just under one in 6 (15%, 38) further suggest that a timeframe for the EDI strategy’s implementation is required, including a detailed outline of specific actions.
A small number (7%, 17) feel the strategy would benefit from visual diagrams or specific examples to demonstrate how the ambitions will be enacted.
The need for clearer, more concise or stronger language is noted by just over one quarter (26%, 66) of those commenting. Respondents suggest that:
- the strategy’s ambitions should conform to a SMART model to ensure the content is clearly achievable
- there should be greater emphasis on accountability of leaders or people in positions of responsibility
- examples should be included to describe quantifiably where the issues lie and what the aims are for individual protected characteristics
- the language should be more direct and decisive to clearly indicate UKRI will achieve positive results
A quarter of organisations commenting (23 of 92) note that clarity is needed regarding the place or engagement that partnerships, institutions, stakeholders and organisations have within this strategy, and exactly what is expected of them to ensure success.
Around one in 6 (17%, 43) of all commenting make suggestions relating to specific wording, such as the phrases “everyone is able to be the real self” and “a research and innovation system by everyone, for everyone”.
They feel such statements are unrealistic ideologies that are not easily acquired with the current research systems, due to existing issues (sexism, racism, homophobia) and suggest that such comments need to explicitly include equality, equity or justice, and specifics on how funding models will be altered to ensure everyone is included.
In terms of the content of the strategy’s ambition, around one-fifth (18%, 46) of those commenting believe that certain groups of people are not represented within the ambitions.
Specifically, respondents note little mention of those from different socioeconomic or non-privileged backgrounds, people with varying needs (carers, young parents), people with mental health issues and those who are neurodiverse.
Individuals (11%, 28 of 216) mentioned this more often than organisations (7%, 18 of 92), and women (17%, 19 of 109) more so than men (10%, 8 of 77).
Further to this, a small number (4%, 11) feel that a clearer distinction is required between sex and gender and the links therein to sexual orientation, arguing that any miscommunication through linking biological sex with gender might negatively represent or diminish different issues faced by different groups.
Meanwhile, others (7%, 18) state more broadly that funding and research outcomes should be based on merit alone.
Some respondents (15%, 38) feel that the proposed ambitions are missing a succinct definition of what EDI is and what it encompasses.
They would welcome more information on how the strategy and ambition will be included in and impact future research and innovation and future policy, and greater clarity on what success might look like for EDI in the research and innovation environment.
This is noted slightly more often by minority ethnic respondents (14%, 7 of 49) compared to White respondents (9%, 12 of 137).
Cornerstones for change
Key points were:
- respondents are generally ambivalent about the 4 cornerstones. In response to how well UKRI is exhibiting the behaviours set out in these, the most common response is ‘neither agree nor disagree’
- around 20 to 25% of those commenting are unclear if or how UKRI has been demonstrating the behaviours outlined in the cornerstones
- around a fifth of those commenting believe the cornerstones need to include more specific actions and outcomes and to clarify what success will look like
UKRI’s ambition for this draft strategy, outlined in the preceding chapter, is underpinned by 4 cornerstones of change.
Cornerstone 1: we will foster an inclusive, equitable, just and diverse research and innovation system by championing and focusing on systemic and structural change.
Cornerstone 2: we will be open, transparent and inclusive in our approaches by listening, influencing and working in partnership.
Cornerstone 3: we are committed to leading, taking action and being innovative. We will use evidence, data and learning from ourselves and others to inform our actions and how we work.
Cornerstone 4: we expect every individual in UKRI to be inclusive in all that they do, and we will hold ourselves to account for our actions as individuals, as leaders, partners and as an organisation.
These cornerstones will shape and inform UKRI’s decisions, actions and behaviours, and describe how it will work to achieve its ambitions.
In interpreting the responses within this section, it is important to bear in mind that the cornerstones set out what UKRI will do, whereas the consultation questions ask how well UKRI is currently exhibiting the behaviours set out in the cornerstones.
Cornerstone 1
We will foster an inclusive, equitable, just and diverse research and innovation system by championing and focusing on systemic and structural change.
Respondents were asked to think about UKRI and to provide their view on how well UKRI is exhibiting the above behaviours.
Over two-fifths (44%) neither agree nor disagree with this statement. Around 2 in 5 (38%) disagree or strongly disagree, while just under one-fifth (19%) agree or strongly agree.
Disagreement levels are slightly higher among individuals (40%) than organisations (32%); and among individuals who are UKRI staff than those who are not (50% versus 37%), although agreement levels are similar (20% and 19% respectively).
| Respondents | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Disagree | Strongly disagree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All respondents (289) | 3% | 16% | 44% | 25% | 13% |
| Individuals (208) | 4% | 15% | 41% | 24% | 16% |
| Organisations (81) | 0% | 19% | 49% | 27% | 5% |
| Individual type | |||||
| UKRI staff (56) | 2% | 18% | 30% | 32% | 18% |
| Non-UKRI staff (152) | 5% | 14% | 44% | 21% | 16% |
| Organisation type | |||||
| Higher education institute (39) | 0% | 13% | 67% | 18% | 3% |
| Charity or third sector body (12) | 0% | 17% | 58% | 17% | 8% |
| Representative group or collective (8) | 0% | 0% | 38% | 63% | 0% |
| Public sector body (6) | 0% | 17% | 50% | 17% | 17% |
| Other (8) | 0% | 25% | 13% | 63% | 0% |
Base: 289 respondents. Source: UKRI consultation, 2022
There is also some variability in individuals’ responses by age, with disagreement levels noticeably higher among those aged 30 to 39 (52%), and agreement levels highest among those aged 50 to 59 (28%).
| Respondents | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Disagree | Strongly disagree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All individual respondents (208) | 4% | 15% | 41% | 24% | 16% |
| Age 29 and under (10) | 0% | 10% | 60% | 10% | 20% |
| Age 30-39 (42) | 0% | 12% | 36% | 38% | 14% |
| Age 40-49 (56) | 2% | 21% | 34% | 29% | 14% |
| Age 50-59 (61) | 8% | 20% | 38% | 18% | 16% |
| Age 60+ (22) | 9% | 0% | 73% | 14% | 5% |
| Unknown age (17) | 0% | 6% | 41% | 12% | 41% |
Base: 208 individual respondents. Source: UKRI consultation, 2022.
Respondents were provided with the opportunity to supply further comment, and 189 responses were received, of which 123 were from individuals and 66 from organisations.
Just over a quarter (26%, 50) of those commenting feel that there is no current, or past, substantial evidence to suggest this cornerstone is being met, or that systemic and structural changes will occur in the research and innovation landscape, or that a just and diverse research and innovation system will be feasible.
These respondents have not directly witnessed any alterations or efforts made by UKRI that would suggest a commitment in this regard, and as such are dubious as to how effective this cornerstone will be.
This is noted by a higher proportion of females (34%, 20 of 59) in comparison to males (20%, 10 of 51).
A fifth (20%, 38) comment that this cornerstone requires examples, or a concise, definite set of actions to fully realise how UKRI intends to implement systemic and structural change.
Respondents are uncertain how this goal will be achieved, and within what timeframe, and are concerned that no steps will be taken towards accomplishing inclusivity within the research and innovation system.
Further to this, they note that as this cornerstone does not outline past injustices, historical imbalances or show evidence of inequitable circumstances, it is difficult to understand what changes will be required (in June 2020, UKRI made available harmonised diversity data of funding applicants and recipients for the 7 research councils from 2014 onwards, and now publishes these data annually).
A greater percentage of people from minority ethnic backgrounds (25%, 7 of 28) share this opinion than White respondents (13%, 11 of 82).
A fifth (20%, 37) highlight the importance of change and note that it is needed on both a systematic and structural level. Suggestions of what these changes may involve include:
- an overview or restructure of the peer review process, which some find to be inherently biased (for example by ensuring the process is anonymised)
- flagging EDI issues as soon as possible to ensure that change will have a quick, effective impact (in other words, isolating inappropriate behaviour or bullying)
- addressing the gender pay gap (both within UKRI and across the wider research and innovation sector)
- providing help to those from all socio-economic backgrounds, or those who have caring responsibilities
Furthermore, 15% of respondents commenting (29 respondents) feel the funding system is not yet fully inclusive and overall favours certain groups of people.
Specifically, respondents note that women, minority ethnic people, the socio-economically disadvantaged and those with caring responsibilities are most often not represented in the funding models.
Cornerstone 2
We will be open, transparent, and inclusive in our approaches by listening, influencing and working in partnership.
Respondents were asked to think about UKRI and to provide their view on how well UKRI is exhibiting the behaviours above:
- two-fifths (37%) neither agree nor disagree with this statement
- one-third (33%) agree or strongly agree
- 30% disagree or strongly disagree
Agreement and disagreement levels are slightly higher among individuals (34% agree; 32% disagree) than organisations (29% agree; 25% disagree).
| Respondents | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Disagree | Strongly disagree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All respondents (285) | 4% | 29% | 37% | 18% | 12% |
| Individuals (208) | 5% | 29% | 34% | 17% | 15% |
| Organisations (77) | 0% | 29% | 47% | 21% | 4% |
| Organisation type | |||||
| Higher education institute (38) | 0% | 24% | 53% | 21% | 3% |
| Charity or third sector body (11) | 0% | 46% | 36% | 9% | 9% |
| Representative group or collective (8) | 0% | 25% | 38% | 38% | 0% |
| Public sector body (6) | 0% | 33% | 50% | 17% | 0% |
| Other (7) | 0% | 14% | 57% | 29% | 0% |
Base: 285 respondents. Source: UKRI consultation, 2022.
There is some variability in individuals’ responses by ethnicity, with disagreement levels higher among those from a minority ethnic background (42%) compared to those with a White background (30%).
| Respondents | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Disagree | Strongly disagree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All individual respondents (208) | 5% | 29% | 34% | 17% | 15% |
| White (133) | 5% | 30% | 36% | 20% | 10% |
| Ethnic minority (48) | 6% | 29% | 23% | 19% | 23% |
| Not disclosed (27) | 4% | 22% | 41% | 4% | 30% |
Base: 208 individual respondents. Source: UKRI consultation, 2022.
A total of 145 respondents chose to provide additional detail on cornerstone 2, of which 47 are organisations and 98 are individuals.
Around 10% (15) of those commenting are generally positive about the cornerstone and claim that UKRI has demonstrated, or will demonstrate, adequate levels of inclusivity and transparency.
About 2 in 5 (37%, 54) perceive there to be issues relating to communication in some form.
Some (21%, 31, of which 21 are individuals with 8 being UKRI staff) claim that UKRI has not been sufficiently open or transparent in the past (for example, regarding human resources policies or updates, promotion schemes and remuneration structures), and, overall, would welcome more openness and involvement in discussions. This is felt more strongly by females (27%) over men (6%).
Further to this, some (21%, 32) suggest more communication and proactive partnerships with UKRI are needed, specifically relating to any consultation that may be required to achieve the cornerstone goals. Organisations (38%, 18 of 47) note this more frequently than individuals (14%, 14 of 97).
Just under one-fifth (19%, 27) are unaware of any past actions implemented to indicate inclusivity has been taken into consideration and worry that this lack of evidence suggests UKRI will not meet these goals in the future.
Specifically, 10% (15) feel that this cornerstone should directly include a list of actions highlighting how UKRI will achieve full transparency, as currently they think the document is lacking clarity.
Further to this, 19% (27) feel the statement is not clear on how success will be achieved, and either note it is difficult to understand due to a lack of specific information (for example, which partnerships, how frequent will meetings be) or due to an insufficient explanation of what the main goals mean (for example, what does transparency look like in practice).
An additional 7% (10) note uncertainty on definitions used for the key words in this cornerstone and suggest that further clarity should be included.
A small percentage (8%, 13) do not believe that the strategy, or cornerstone 2, is useful or worthwhile, with some noting that research and innovation should be funded on merit alone, rather than conforming to inclusivity policies.
Moreover, a handful of respondents (4%, 6) feel UKRI is not inclusive in the way it listens, as it is not perceived as taking on board opposing opinions.
Cornerstone 3
We are committed to leading, taking action and being innovative. We will use evidence, data and learning from ourselves and others to inform our actions and how we work.
Respondents were asked to think about UKRI and to provide their view on how well UKRI is exhibiting the behaviours above.
Just under two-fifths (39%) neither agree nor disagree with this statement. Around one-third (31%) agree or strongly agree, while a similar proportion (31%) disagree or strongly disagree.
Agreement levels are slightly higher among organisations (35%) than individuals (29%), while disagreement levels are higher among individuals (35%) than organisations (18%).
Meanwhile, individuals who are UKRI staff both agree (36%) and disagree (42%) to a greater extent than non-UKRI staff (26% and 33%, respectively).
| Respondents | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Disagree | Strongly disagree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All respondents (288) | 2% | 29% | 39% | 19% | 12% |
| Individuals (209) | 3% | 26% | 36% | 20% | 15% |
| Organisations (79) | 1% | 34% | 47% | 15% | 3% |
| Organisation type | |||||
| Higher education institute (39) | 3% | 31% | 56% | 10% | 0% |
| Charity or third sector body (11) | 0% | 36% | 36% | 18% | 9% |
| Representative group or collective (8) | 0% | 38% | 25% | 38% | 0% |
| Public sector body (6) | 0% | 17% | 50% | 33% | 0% |
| Other (7) | 0% | 43% | 29% | 14% | 14% |
Base: 288 respondents. Source: UKRI consultation, 2022.
A total of 137 respondents provide further detail on cornerstone 3, with 41 comments from organisations and 96 from individuals.
A handful (12%, 16) believe UKRI is making good efforts and they appreciate the approaches being taken.
For example, they believe UKRI is a good innovator, they welcome the increased release of data, UKRI’s willingness to listen and its transparent approach.
Respondents do not go into further detail beyond this.
A quarter (25%, 34) of those commenting feel there is a lack of clarity on what actions this cornerstone is referring to and are uncertain whether UKRI is actively taking any steps.
Specifically, some respondents believe the cornerstone should go into more detail to:
- highlight what inclusivity issues are present and how these will be tackled
- how UKRI will learn from both outcomes and mistakes
- how actions will affect the funding landscapes
- exactly what actions are being taken, and when, to ensure innovation is continuing. This final point is noted more often by organisations (37%) than individuals (20%)
Further to this, some (14%, 20) are unclear about current methods of data collection and believe the cornerstone should succinctly state what data are already known, how data will be gathered, and what data on protected characteristics will be included (for example, a few suggest there should be distinct, separate categories for sex and gender).
Other respondents (14%, 19) do not believe UKRI is exhibiting the behaviours in this cornerstone, perceiving that UKRI is not innovative, that UKRI does not have accountability, or that leaders are not embracing EDI).
Some further perceive that UKRI is not best-placed to lead the EDI agenda, and instead should focus on supporting research and innovation.
Some (12%, 17) note that there is a lack of inclusion within this cornerstone, and highlight certain protected characteristics such as sex (specifically females), sexual orientation, people with disabilities and varying religions, are not fully detailed as part of this strategy.
A higher percentage of organisations (17%, 7 of 41) share this opinion compared to individuals (11%, 10 of 95).
Others (12%, 17) express concern regarding the evidence-based review approach and believe that greater transparency is required.
They feel UKRI should fully publish its sources and be open about every step taken when considering data and the resulting actions.
This will provide a guarantee that UKRI is gathering and collecting data fairly and consistently across all protected characteristics. This is more commonly noted by organisations (22%, 9 of 41) rather than individuals (8%, 8 of 95).
Furthermore, a group of respondents (12%, 16) is sceptical that this cornerstone will be effective, as they have not directly witnessed UKRI taking actions, such as gathering adequate data or using an evidence-based approach.
They feel UKRI is not being innovative in this field, and express doubt they will see this in the future. Individuals (17%, 13 of 95) comment on this more frequently than organisations (7%, 3 of 41).
Cornerstone 4
We expect every individual in UKRI to be inclusive in all that they do, and we will hold ourselves to account for our actions as individuals, as leaders, partners and as an organisation.
Respondents were asked to think about UKRI and to provide their view on how well UKRI is exhibiting the behaviours above.
Around half (47%) neither agree nor disagree with this statement. One-quarter (25%) agree or strongly agree, while a slightly higher proportion (28%) disagree or strongly disagree.
Disagreement levels are higher among individuals (33%) than organisations (15%).
| Respondents | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Disagree | Strongly disagree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All respondents (281) | 3% | 22% | 47% | 15% | 13% |
| Individuals (204) | 3% | 21% | 43% | 17% | 16% |
| Organisations (77) | 1% | 25% | 60% | 12% | 3% |
| Organisation type | |||||
| Higher education institute (39) | 3% | 21% | 74% | 3% | 0% |
| Charity or third sector body (11) | 0% | 46% | 36% | 9% | 9% |
| Representative group or collective (8) | 0% | 13% | 50% | 38% | 0% |
| Public sector body (6) | 0% | 17% | 67% | 17% | 0% |
| Other (7) | 0% | 43% | 14% | 43% | 0% |
Base: 281 respondents. Source: UKRI consultation, 2022.
There is some variability in individuals’ responses by ethnicity, with disagreement levels higher among those from a minority ethnic background (43%) compared to those with a White background (31%).
| Respondents | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Disagree | Strongly disagree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All individual respondents (204) | 3% | 21% | 43% | 17% | 16% |
| White (131) | 4% | 25% | 41% | 19% | 12% |
| Ethnic minority (47) | 4% | 11% | 43% | 17% | 26% |
| Not disclosed (26) | 0% | 19% | 54% | 4% | 23% |
Base: 204 individual respondents. Source: UKRI consultation, 2022.
A total of 150 respondents commented to provide further detail on cornerstone 4, of which 41 are organisations and 109 are individuals.
Slightly less than a tenth (9%, 13) note that the content of this cornerstone is important, indicating that accountability is vital for UKRI.
Around a quarter (23%, 35) comment that clarification is needed surrounding the aims, objectives and purposes of the strategy, and are unclear how success in relation to this will be obtained.
They express uncertainty about cornerstone 4 and note that, while the sentiment of inclusivity and accountability is admirable, they are unsure as to what ‘good’ looks like in this scenario.
It is suggested that the cornerstone should provide greater detail as to how these aims will be monitored, to provide more information and visibility about board level governance, and highlight specific actions taken to demonstrate accountability and inclusivity.
Organisations (34%, 14 of 41) note this more frequently than individuals (19%, 21 of 109). Related to this increased clarity, 9% (13) believe definitions of inclusivity are needed, as terms are currently too vague to implement the strategy effectively.
Some respondents (17%, 26) feel that certain groups are not being represented within this cornerstone, which they worry may lead to diminished inclusivity.
They specifically note the lack of mention of religion or belief, sex (particularly females), the socio-economically disadvantaged and people with disabilities.
Accountability issues are noted by one in 6 (15%, 22), who are concerned that UKRI and those in leadership positions have not been held responsible for past actions.
Specifically, they feel it is unclear how UKRI will hold itself to account effectively and without bias and believe that further information is needed on pathways to successfully report people, and what consequences will come of this.
A higher percentage of individuals (17%, 19 of 109) than organisations (7%, 3 of 41) have these opinions.
Further to this, a minority (6%, 9, of which 6 are individuals with 5 being UKRI staff) state they have witnessed or experienced poor behaviour (bullying or harassment) from people at executive and managerial levels and have not witnessed anyone being held accountable.
One in 10 (10%, 15) lack confidence that this cornerstone can be achieved. Respondents either feel there has been no past evidence to suggest the goals will be met (due to scepticism or personal past experiences), or believe reassurance is required to indicate how UKRI will guarantee success.
Strategic objectives
Key points were:
- 62% agree and 38% disagree the EDI strategic objectives are clear
- a fifth (21%, 25 respondents) commenting further are unclear on the relationship between the ambition, cornerstones, and objectives
- collaborative partnership working with stakeholders, dedicated investment, and commitment to an evidence-based approach are welcomed
- between a quarter and a third of those commenting against each of the 4 objectives suggest they need to be more specific or be measurable to track in practice
- around half commenting, mainly organisations, believe sharing best practice and case studies present opportunities to work with UKRI on EDI issues
- respondents would also welcome an outline of how UKRI will hold itself accountable against the strategy
UKRI’s 4 strategic objectives and priorities for action are underpinned by the cornerstones for change outlined in the previous section.
The objectives provide a framework for the actions UKRI will take to implement this strategy and continue its EDI journey. In total there are 4 strategic objectives.
Objective 1: fostering an inclusive and diverse research and innovation system, “by everyone, for everyone”.
Objective 2: advancing equality and inclusion through our investments and how we work.
Objective 3: everyone who works for UKRI will feel included, valued and able to contribute and participate.
Objective 4: to develop approaches to monitor, measure and evaluate change.
Clarity of strategic objectives
Respondents were asked whether they think the proposed EDI strategic objectives are clear.
Around 3 in 5 (62%) believe they are, while 38% do not. Agreement levels are slightly higher among individuals (64%) than organisations (56%), and among individuals who are UKRI staff (73%) than those who are not (60%).
Levels of agreement were:
- all respondents (297) yes 62% no 38%
- individuals (208) yes 64% no 36%
- organisations (89) yes 56% no 44%
- individual type
- UKRI staff (54) yes 73% no 27%
- non-UKRI staff (154) yes 60% no 40%
- organisation type
- higher education institute (42) yes 67% no 33%
- charity or third sector body (14) yes 64% no 36%
- representative group or collective (10) yes 40% no 60%
- public sector body (6) yes 33% no 67%
- other (8) yes 50% no 50%
There is some variability among individuals’ responses by certain sub-groups:
- disability: no known disability (71% agree) versus known disability (59%)
- term used to describe gender: woman (73% agree) versus man (68%) vs other or prefer to self-describe (33%)
- ethnicity: White background (71% agree) versus minority ethnic background (58%)
Some 119 respondents chose to provide brief details on what they believe is unclear.
Around one third (36%, 43) believe the strategic objectives are not specific enough, particularly in outlining what will be done, or what they mean in the terms of their use, and suggest that definitions are required.
A similar proportion (34%, 40) believe the strategic objectives are not measurable, or question how the objectives will be tracked in practice and would welcome these being more concrete or measurable.
Some suggest the current objectives are, as they stand, only aims, as they lack SMART descriptors, with 13% (15) specifically raising concern about the achievability of the objectives and whether they are time-bound.
Just under a quarter (24%, 29) say the objectives are clear and easy to read and are generally supportive of the strategic objectives.
Just over a fifth (21%, 25) state they are confused by the relationship between the strategy’s objectives, ambitions and the cornerstones, and suggest that this results in a lack of clarity.
One in 6 (17%, 20) suggest the wording of the objectives requires greater clarity, for instance questioning what the phrase “by everyone, for everyone” means in practice. Others feel the phrasing used can be jargonistic or empty.
Just under 1 in 10 (9%, 11) would welcome greater detail on who is involved or would benefit from the objectives, and 7% (8) seek clarity on how accountability will be considered.
Objective 1
Fostering an inclusive and diverse research and innovation system, “by everyone, for everyone”.
Notable strengths of objective 1
Respondents were asked to comment on what they like most about this proposed objective, and 220 comments were received, 141 from individuals, and 79 from organisations.
Almost a quarter (24%, 53) like the inclusivity of the objective the most and welcome this objective embracing the whole community.
A fifth (20%, 44) like that UKRI is to lead by example, take responsibility, or commit to partnerships. The recognition of UKRI’s place in the research and innovation landscape, its duty to the researchers within the system, and the good that the organisation can do with its profile are significant aspects of what these respondents like most.
Almost a fifth (19%, 42) most like the actions specified by UKRI or the intended outcomes of this strategy. Organisations (23%, 18 of 79) say this more commonly than individuals (17%, 24 of 141).
Respondents note that the suggestion of SMART objectives here has increased their opinion of the objective.
Around 1 in 6 (15%, 33) say they like nothing or very little about this objective. They believe the draft strategy to be an unnecessary use of public funds, or that the tagline “by everyone, for everyone” is too broad and vague. All these comments are from individuals.
Approximately 14% (31) suggest the most liked aspect of this objective is the recognition that systemic change is needed. Respondents suggest this is an ambitious but laudable goal.
Just over 1 in 10 (11%, 24) provide generally positive comments, but do not go into detail.
Around 10% (22) most like the evidence-based goals, and a similar proportion say they like the ambition of the objective. Generally, respondents welcome the ambition of the objective to change the process.
Suggested areas of improvement for objective 1
Respondents were asked how the proposed objective could be improved, or if there are any significant gaps, and 220 comments were received, 139 from individuals and 81 from organisations.
The most common suggestion, made by over one-third (35%, 76), is for the objective to be more specific.
There are suggestions that the objective should explicitly identify systemic or known issues, for instance detailing specific underrepresented groups, and outlining explicitly how UKRI will ensure that decision-making panels are diverse in the first place.
Some respondents would also appreciate a more measurable or time-bound objective, with specific actions and responsibilities suggested by 27% (60 respondents).
Over a third (35%, 77) would welcome the shortening and tightening of language used in this objective.
There is concern the strategy is overly long, but also that the language used is too vague or in some instances lacks clarity. Respondents suggest a more concise document would be easier to read and understand.
Just over a quarter (26%, 57) would welcome greater detail on certain points, for example regarding the role and expectations of partners, how minority groups will be consulted, or including explicit reference to aspects such as socio-economic status or religion. This is more frequently mentioned by organisations (40%, 32 of 81) than individuals (18%, 25 of 139).
One in 10 (10%, 22) would welcome a description of what success looks like for this objective. Others suggest that a discussion of funding priority changes is needed (9%, 20), or for the objective to show an explicit commitment to all posts (support, postgraduate researchers, technicians) (9%, 20).
Opportunities to work with UKRI on objective 1
Respondents were asked what opportunities they see for them or their organisation to work with UKRI to achieve this objective, and 175 comments were received, 104 from individuals and 71 from organisations.
Almost half (48%, 84) believe that sharing best practice or case studies is an effective way in which they can see themselves or their organisation working with UKRI to achieve this objective. This is more commonly suggested by organisations (76%, 54 of 71).
Around a quarter (27%, 47) mention working directly with UKRI or aligning policy with UKRI to assist achieving this objective, and organisations are keen to suggest they would like to work with UKRI to create a vision of what an inclusive research and innovation landscape might look like.
They also point out that their own EDI policies and directives likely align well with this strategy.
Around a quarter (23%, 40) say they see no way to work with UKRI, have no interest, or are unable to do so. Some suggest this is because they do not want to work with a political policy.
Over a fifth (22%, 38) report that sharing data or evidencing the process would be a way they could assist UKRI.
Gathering data, it is argued, would enable the use of evidence-led objectives, and to target areas that most need help. This is more commonly mentioned by organisations (76%, 54 of 71).
Other comments include ensuring the promotion of existing initiatives such as 10,000 Black Interns (9%, 16) and leveraging of existing programmes such as Athena Swan (5%, nine).
Objective 2
Advancing equality and inclusion through our investments and how we work.
Notable strengths of objective 2
Some 208 respondents commented on what they like most about the second proposed objective.
Just under 3 in 10 (29%, 60) mention investment or funding, or application and award mechanisms. This is seen as a positive step towards inclusivity by respondents, as it is seen as a powerful means to advance the issue.
A quarter (25%, 52) like most the inclusion of a diversity of people, or people that already champion EDI. Some refer to the increasing diversity of UKRI’s leadership team, and others state this objective is a great opportunity to focus on underrepresented groups and support them.
Just under a quarter (23%, 47) mention that they most like how this objective will lead, or suggests that UKRI is moving toward, effecting a culture shift in research and innovation, including structural change that will improve accountability.
Around a fifth (22%, 46) most like how the second objective contains more concrete actions or outcomes than the other objectives. Respondents are keen to hear how UKRI is planning to move forward and welcome the specificity of actions under this objective.
Around 1 in 8 (13%, 27) welcome how this objective will focus on embedding EDI into all aspects of the research and innovation funding process.
Respondents appreciate that this strategy is not just a platitude and acknowledge that embedding EDI processes into all processes will involve serious change.
Approximately 12% (25) most like the commitment to sharing best practice and the changes to training. Respondents suggest this is important to evaluate the processes and changes made, to ensure robustness.
One tenth (10%, 21) say that the implication that UKRI will choose EDI-minded partners is what they liked most about this objective. Other points noted include:
- the recognition of UKRI’s position as a funding body to effect change (9%, 19)
- generally positive comments that do not go into further detail (7%, 15)
- the commitment to changing peer review (4%, 8)
Suggested areas of improvement for objective 2
There are 197 respondents (125 individuals and 72 organisations) who provided their views on whether this objective could be improved or whether there are any significant gaps.
Over a quarter (27%, 53) believe that more detail is needed.
Respondents feel there are descriptions, but that these do not provide sufficient detail, and that more clarity is needed on how UKRI intends to meet its desired outcomes, such as the use of SMART objectives which, it is felt, would go some way towards achieving this aim.
Others would like more information on what investments are going to be made, how progress is going to be tracked and monitored and how organisations are going to be held accountable.
A quarter (25%, 49) say greater focus on underrepresented groups is required.
There are concerns the current definition does not specifically mention underrepresented groups such as those with hidden disabilities, neurodiversity, different religious groups and carers returning to work.
It is suggested that a proportion of UKRI’s budget be set aside to ensure that funding is in place to support the recruitment and retention of individuals from underrepresented groups into the research and innovation sector.
Of those commenting, 12% (24) believe money should be invested in individuals and organisations that buy into equality and inclusion.
It is felt that investments are the biggest drivers for making change happen, can be used to drive significant change in the extended supply chain and can drive global change through the research and innovation that is undertaken.
Respondents suggest UKRI should find a way of measuring how those individuals and organisations are meeting their EDI obligations, making investments in those who are performing well.
10% (20) say more measurable objectives are needed. They propose the use of transparent benchmarks and targets, which will be particularly important to assess the progress that has been made.
Suggested areas to look at include the types of research and innovation funded, the balance between qualitative and quantitative research and innovation, between large-scale and small-scale projects and between blue sky and impact-oriented research and innovation.
A minority (7%, 14) comment that UKRI is well-placed to influence change, in other words, it can formulate a best practice model for the sector to follow, and it can direct funding to organisations and individuals who adhere to EDI best practice.
Around 6% (12), mostly organisations, suggest that a more diverse leadership team is needed. A similar number (6%, 12) say that measurement of how investments are used to advance EDI will be crucial.
Opportunities to work with UKRI on objective 2
Respondents were asked about what opportunities they can see for them or their organisation to work with UKRI in achieving the proposed objectives, and 142 comments were received. Of these, 79 are from individuals and 63 from organisations.
3 in 10 (30%, 43) say the sharing and use of good practice models will be beneficial for those involved, the majority (36) being organisations.
A range of suggestions include development of good practice in doctoral student training and recruitment, for example by helping to gather the evidence base for change, including from those researchers who are currently excluded from equitable access to UKRI funding.
Further ideas shared are collaborating with EDI leads in other organisations, the use of case studies to bring to life individuals experiences and trialling and evaluating new inclusive policies such as shared parental leave.
Of this group of respondents, 3 in 5 (26, of which 23 are organisations) encourage UKRI to develop a good practice model.
Collaboration, it is argued, is key to ensuring the sector as a whole is heading in the same direction. Some would also like to see UKRI develop principles around inclusive research and innovation design and practice.
Around 1 in 8 (12%, 17) would like to see UKRI target, welcome and develop relationships with diverse and marginalised institutions and individuals.
They suggest investments should be made in young, fresh organisations with the ‘right’ values, diverse leadership and funding structures.
Some mention that smaller organisations are more approachable and may offer less biased committee members.
Others suggest providing funding to hire individuals from underrepresented groups in UK academic institutions to work on research and innovation studies, and recommend revising the peer review process accordingly.
10% (14, of which 11 are individuals) say they cannot see an opportunity to work with UKRI to achieve this objective and perceive that UKRI works only with people judged on their abilities, and that this is a political aim.
A small number (6%, 9) suggest integrating EDI into assessments of research and innovation proposals.
More specifically, it is suggested that EDI objectives of universities and individual grants should be more prominent in grant applications, to ask for evidence of actions being taken to promote diversity.
A similar proportion (6%, 9) mention improving diversity in recruitment, arguing of the need for clearer integration of EDI principles in recruitment across the board.
Additionally, they suggest ensuring there are no barriers to candidates, providing funding to hire individuals from underrepresented groups, and that having EDI specialists on panels could avoid bias.
Objective 3
Everyone who works for UKRI will feel included, valued and able to contribute and participate.
Notable strengths of objective 3
There are 199 respondents (129 individuals, of which 36 are UKRI staff, and 70 organisations) commenting on what they like most about this objective.
One-fifth (20%, 39) say they most like the ambition shown. Some mention this is welcome in any organisation aiming to include and value its employees.
Others say it provides UKRI with the opportunity to be a role model for what it stands for and to be an example that others can follow.
Respondents think it is important that UKRI is acknowledging and working on its own EDI issues as well as aiming for change in the wider research and innovation community.
They further note this objective demonstrates that UKRI realises the importance of being a model for change and welcome the accountability of the senior leadership as progress is made towards being a more inclusive organisation.
Greater transparency, too, is welcome, as is the use of external assessors. Concepts such as behaviour expectations on inclusion being included in job descriptions, performance reviews and competency frameworks are seen as a positive step forward.
One in 10 (20) specifically welcome the objective’s ambition and are pleased to see UKRI is seeking to lead by example.
There are 14% (27) who most like the fact senior leaders are accountable, and this was noted more often by UKRI staff (22%, 8 out of 36).
Some respondents feel this has not been evident to date and believe that a focus on this aspect may help to drive real change.
To encourage accountability, transparency will be needed, which will enhance timely progress towards the objective.
To succeed, this must be constantly reinforced, it is argued, and UKRI senior leaders ought to be accountable for championing inclusion and modelling inclusive actions and behaviours. This point is mostly raised by organisations.
A small minority (7%, 14) most like how expectations for inclusive leadership and management are set out.
They believe this will help to change organisations’ culture in the future, and that this is important if UKRI is to influence change across the sector.
A similar proportion (7%, 14) explicitly comment on the objective’s emphasis on building culture.
They welcome the move away from being ‘corporate’ and the concept of an inclusive and enabling workplace that is supported by systems and processes that offer a rapid, proportionate and effective response when issues arise.
Several (6%, 12) say this objective will help to create empowering working environments where people feel safe and heard.
Suggested areas of improvement for objective 3
There are 166 respondents (101 individuals, including 34 UKRI staff, and 65 organisations) who provided their views on whether this objective could be improved, or whether there are any significant gaps.
Just over one-quarter (26%, 43) believe the objective is unclear and request greater detail, for instance to use real examples, SMART objectives, to thereby establish a mechanism by which leadership will be accountable.
Some suggest creating a framework for how institutions deal with inclusivity concerns and for how transparent investments will look.
Around 1 in 6 (16%, 27) suggest providing a voice and leadership roles to those from underrepresented groups, arguing that such individuals can act as visible role models to encourage more people into academia.
Respondents further suggest having some measurable indicator of diverse representation at senior management level and a commitment to having diversity leads sitting on employment panels when recruiting at senior levels.
A smaller number (11%, 18) request UKRI to publish more diversity data (for example, pay gaps relating to each protected characteristic), so that its partners are aware of it, and to enable a mutual sharing of such data.
This will also help with setting a baseline, from which reasonable targets can be set and progress measured.
Others mention that UKRI should ensure its partners adhere to UKRI standards (7%, 12), establish baseline data (5%, 8) and publish data on pay gaps (5%, 8).
Opportunities to work with UKRI on objective 3
Respondents were asked about what opportunities they can see for them or their organisation to work with UKRI in achieving the proposed objectives, and 120 comments were received.
Of these, 64 are from individuals (24 UKRI staff) and 56 from organisations.
Over a third (36%, 43) mention collaboration on best practice. They believe UKRI is well-placed to lead the sector on EDI and to set standards for others to aim towards.
Respondents feel that collaboration will ensure best practice is achieved in areas such as career development, pay progression, recruitment, staff retention and gender balance on senior panels. These points are most commonly raised by organisations.
Around 1 in 6 (17%, 20) specifically mention improvements in the recruitment and retention of a diverse pool of staff, a point made most frequently by those of minority ethnic background, and by UKRI staff (7 of 24, 29%).
It is felt that having greater diversity of individuals, particularly in more senior positions, will help to attract a broader range of people to the sector.
Suggestions made to achieve this include for EDI leads to sit on recruitment panels or to be a part of the consultation for senior leadership positions, and to consider appointing an EDI director and a new people and organisational development director who has equality and inclusion at the core of their leadership key performance indicators.
Others propose marketing leadership roles through partner organisations who have a more diverse audience and a review of staff recruitment and retention policies.
A minority of individuals (13%, 16) say they see no opportunities to work with UKRI. Other suggestions, each mentioned by fewer than 10% of those commenting, include:
- working with UKRI to identify EDI training required in partners’ workforces (6%, 7 respondents)
- reviewing pay progression and promotion (5%, 6)
- implementing an inclusive approach to leadership roles (4%, 5)
- establishing staff networks (3%, 4)
- increasing the diversity of panels (3%, 4)
- introducing diversity dashboards (3%, 4)
Objective 4
To develop approaches to monitor, measure and evaluate change.
Notable strengths of objective 4
Respondents were asked what they most liked about this objective, and 202 comments were received, of which 129 are from individuals and 73 from organisations.
More than a third (36%, 73) most like the commitment to an evidence-based approach.
They acknowledge that data is needed to fully understand and appreciate where key inequalities lie, and to understand the progress being made in addressing these.
In particular, the collection and analysis of longitudinal data will help highlight any underrepresented groups in grant applications and awards.
It is felt this objective sets out a path to acquiring the required data, thus ensuring progress towards realising UKRI’s goals.
Others in this group (18%, 36) welcome the commitment to a range of data being collected, citing the demographic information in this consultation as a good example in this regard.
Respondents further like how strategies and policies will be evaluated and, if necessary, changed on the basis of new evidence.
Greater transparency, along with UKRI’s intention to publish EDI data annually, is also applauded as providing a benchmark for the wider sector.
Around a fifth (22%, 44) say that measuring and publishing progress will demonstrate to current and future employees, partners and stakeholders that the EDI objectives are having a positive impact on organisational culture.
Further comments note how issues of inclusion and diversity are often presented politically or purely as a discussion point, and respondents welcome this evidence base, arguing that if data is not measured then actions cannot be taken.
Further to this, around 1 in 6 (16%, 32) believe there needs to be a strong evidence base to be able to inform decision-making and to ensure objective decisions are made on the back of robust data, thus ensuring buy-in among UKRI staff and partners.
Around 1 in 6 (17%, 34) highlight the importance collecting a range of data, suggesting this will help with benchmarking, and lead to a broader understanding of the current landscape and enable targeted interventions.
Suggested areas of improvement for objective 4
There are 192 respondents (115 individuals and 77 organisations) who provided their views on whether this objective could be improved, or whether there are any significant gaps.
Almost a quarter (24%, 47) believe there is a general lack of detail and feel more explanation is required on how this objective will be achieved, arguing that this is crucial to monitoring change.
Respondents suggest the objective needs to contain specific, measurable and achievable goals, and outline a plan for how interventions will be targeted and include a baseline with SMART objectives applied, noting that this will be crucial to help monitor change.
Some respondents seek further clarity on various aspects including priorities, action plans, and delivery mechanisms.
Others query how current research and innovation and data, from research councils and partner organisations, can be used to inform, monitor and evaluate change, and what is meant by high performing in this regard.
To increase transparency, they advocate for more data being collected and shared about applicants, reviewers, employees, councils and boards, and on how and when this data is recorded and analysed.
Some mention it is unclear what feasibility models are, and how UKRI will use them to support sustainable change, and others suggest that external assessment and accountability may be required.
One fifth (20%, 38) say there are challenges to collecting EDI data, for instance that numbers are often small and that EDI data can create problems with anonymity, for example, for those who do not want to declare certain information as they do not want to be seen to be different.
Some suggest that the current categories are incomplete, for instance LGBTQ+ groups, people with caring responsibilities, socio-economic class and career stage are all noted as missing.
One in 6 (17%, 33) question how interventions will be targeted, noting that it may be difficult to implement systems for monitoring and reporting on outcomes without this clarity.
Some suggest more detail is needed to enable reporting of success and to identify any problem areas and would like to see more concrete approaches to implementing the strategy.
A minority (7%, 13) seek clarity about the data being collected, and a similar proportion (6%, 12) mention that data collection could place additional burden on the very groups UKRI aims to promote.
Opportunities to work with UKRI on objective 4
Respondents were asked about what opportunities they can see for themselves or their organisation to work with UKRI in achieving the proposed objectives, and 127 comments were received. Of these, 61 are from individuals and 66 from organisations.
Over a third (35%, 44) say that sharing of good practice leads to greater accountability through setting targets, measuring and reporting progress, and think that UKRI is best placed to lead the way in the sector.
Suggestions on how this can be best achieved include:
- UKRI being open and transparent and co-creating processes
- sharing already-collected data
- creating diversity dashboards
- aligning baseline and benchmarking data
- aligning key performance indicators and measures of success
A quarter (25%, 32) say they are already sharing collected data to help establish a consistent benchmark against which targets can be applied and progress measured, ensuring that appropriate and effective changes are made.
Others suggest working with UKRI to access and share data while protecting anonymity, and to establish a standard template for collecting demographic data and pooled analysis.
Reviewing existing models of recognised good practice in relation to EDI data collection is also suggested.
A quarter (25%, 32) mention aligning their objectives and measurements with UKRI to enable sector-wide standards to be set and ensure that monitoring will be comparable.
Some think there is a need to define exactly what needs to change before measuring how much it is changing.
Others suggest gathering sector-wide perspectives on how the impact of any changes or interventions can be evaluated, and to inform the development of key performance indicators and measures of success.
Just under a quarter (24%, 30) say they can work with UKRI to help understand what areas to evaluate and how best to monitor these effectively.
There is a willingness to share best practice in how EDI research is conducted and monitored in different organisations.
Just under 1 in 6 (15%, 19) see no opportunities to work with UKRI.
Summary of actions suggested by respondents
This report has provided an overview of perceptions of UKRI’s draft EDI strategy, outlining respondents’ perceptions of its relative strengths and merits.
It should be re-iterated at this point that, by its nature, this consultation is self-selecting in its response and cannot be said to be representative of the sector.
However, many have taken the time to provide constructive and helpful feedback as UKRI seeks to finalise its strategy.
Based on the analysis of all 331 responses received to this consultation, this section draws together the findings and sets out the priority suggestions from respondents as to how the strategy could be improved prior to finalisation later in 2022.
These suggestions are those most commonly raised by respondents across the consultation and can be summarised in 10 action points.
1. Use of plain English
Respondents raise concern that the language employed in the draft strategy can sometimes be too verbose and use too many buzzwords and fear this may hinder readers’ understanding and interpretation of the document.
It is suggested that the language in the EDI strategy is reviewed, to make the text more concise where possible, and to edit the language to use plain English as far as is feasible. This will ensure that the strategy is truly accessible to all.
2. Incorporation of summaries and visuals
Following on from the previous point that respondents believe the document is, in places, overly lengthy, there is suggestion that including short summaries at the start of each section would assist readers to quickly find, distil and digest the strategy’s key messages.
It is further suggested that increased use of graphics or visuals would assist readers and boost accessibility.
3. Incorporation of a glossary
As part of the draft EDI strategy, a glossary of commonly used EDI terms was published by UKRI alongside the draft strategy.
Respondents believe that a glossary is useful to accompany the strategy but suggest that some terms not currently included require defining formally.
4. Greater clarity on how ambition, cornerstones and objectives link together
There was some confusion among respondents as to how the 3 strands of the EDI strategy (the ambition, the 4 cornerstones and the 4 objectives) all link together.
Respondents would welcome greater clarity on how each of these elements is intended to contribute and add value to the strategy, and the specific role of each discrete section.
5. Greater clarity on actions and outcomes
Greater clarity is requested by respondents who regularly comment that the draft EDI strategy can be too vague.
Respondents would welcome the strategy to spell out in more detail what specific actions UKRI intends to take and to detail what success might look like for the strategy.
6. Incorporation of SMART objectives as part of specific action plans
Linked to the previous point, respondents suggest the strategy is revised to include SMART objectives, that is, goals that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound.
With the 7 research councils, Innovate UK and Research England all developing action plans that will complement UKRI’s EDI strategy, there is opportunity to include SMART objectives in these plans with specific detail on how aims and objectives will be achieved.
7. Greater clarity on the role of partners in the roll-out of actions related to the EDI strategy
The value placed on collaboration in the draft EDI strategy is praised by respondents.
However, there is feedback that greater clarity is required to provide a more detailed overview of the role that partners are expected to play as part of the UKRI’s EDI strategy.
This will ensure stakeholders have clear expectations of what is anticipated through engagement with UKRI on this topic.
8. Specifying how UKRI will hold itself to account as it delivers against the strategy
Respondents would welcome UKRI giving careful consideration to how it will demonstrate it will hold itself to account as it delivers against the strategy.
Suggestions in this regard include a commitment to annual monitoring and reporting on EDI practices. Others suggest that the UKRI Board could also have a part to play.
9. Consideration of naming specific underrepresented groups
UKRI notes that its draft EDI strategy was drafted specifically to be broad and encompassing of all groups.
However, there is a call from a minority of respondents for the strategy to include mention of specific groups and protected characteristics (such as religion, race, sex, gender).
10. Outlining proposed approach to data collection
Respondents acknowledge that EDI data collection is important, as holding this knowledge will enable targeted, meaningful action to be undertaken.
It is suggested that, as part of its EDI strategy, UKRI clearly sets out expectations for how it will review and select which data fields to collect, and to consider whether these include specific protected characteristics (and which ones), or a broader dataset.
Appendix 1: Detailed respondent profile and grouping for analysis
This section outlines a more detailed respondent profile of individuals responding to the consultation. It also contains an explanation of how response categories available to individuals were grouped for subsequent analysis.
This grouping was undertaken to align with the way UKRI reports its EDI data.
For reference and comparative purposes, data from the latest Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data release are included, as are ONS population data.
Age
| Age | Total respondents | % respondents | UK population data |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18 to 29 | 11 | 5% | 19% |
| 30 to 39 | 44 | 20% | 17% |
| 40 to 49 | 58 | 27% | 16% |
| 50 to 59 | 61 | 28% | 17% |
| 60 to 69 | 23 | 11% | 14% |
| 70 to 79 | 2 | 1% | 11% |
| 80 plus | 0 | 0% | 6% |
| Prefer not to say | 17 | 8% | – |
| TOTAL | 216 | 100% | 100% |
HESA reports that 78% of students are aged 29 or under, and 22% are aged 30+.
Responses were grouped and reported according to these categories:
- 29 and under
- 30 to 39
- 40 to 49
- 50 to 59
- 60 and over
- unknown age
Sex
| Sex | Total respondents | % respondents | HESA data | UK population data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 109 | 51% | 57% | 51% |
| Male | 77 | 36% | 43% | 49% |
| Prefer not to say | 29 | 14% | – | – |
| TOTAL | 215 | 100% | 100% | – |
Responses were grouped and reported according to these categories:
- female
- male
- not disclosed
Gender identification
In answer to the question “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?”, the breakdown of responses is as follows:
- yes 168 (81%)
- no 4 (2%)
- prefer not to say 35 (17%)
- total 207 (100%)
Responses were grouped and reported according to these categories:
- yes
- not disclosed
The ‘no’ option is not reported on individually because of the low number of responses (4).
Gender description
In answer to the question “What term do you use to describe your gender?”, the breakdown of responses is as follows:
- man 72 (34%)
- woman 97 (46%)
- agender 0 (0%)
- androgyne 1 (0.5%)
- demigender 0 (0%)
- gender queer or gender fluid 0 (0%)
- non-binary 2 (1%)
- questioning or unsure of gender 0 (0%)
- other or prefer to self-describe 9 (4%)
- prefer not to say 28 (13%)
- total 209 (100%)
Responses were grouped and reported according to these categories:
- man
- woman
- other or prefer to self-describe
- not disclosed
Disability
In answer to the question “Do you have any conditions, illnesses or disabilities that reduce your ability to carry out day-to-day activities?” (to which multiple responses were permitted), the breakdown of responses is as follows:
- an unseen disability 19 (9%)
- autistic spectrum disorder 7 (3%)
- blind or partially sighted 3 (1%)
- deaf or hearing impaired 5 (2%)
- dyslexia 4 (2%)
- mental health difficulties 16 (8%)
- mobility difficulties 7 (3%)
- multiple disabilities 7 (3%)
- personal care support 1 (0.5%)
- other condition, illness or disability 15 (7%)
- no 128 (61%)
- prefer not to say 28 (13%)
- total 211 (100%)
HESA reports that 85% of students have no known disability or condition, while 15% have a known disability or condition. UK-wide data suggests that 22% of the population has a known disability or condition.
Responses were grouped and reported according to these categories:
- no known disability
- known disability
- not disclosed
Ethnicity
| Ethnicity | Total respondents | % respondents | HESA data | UK population data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asian or Asian British | 13 | 6% | 12% | 8% |
| Black, African, Black British or Caribbean | 18 | 8% | 8% | 4% |
| Mixed or multiple ethnic groups | 7 | 3% | 4% | 2% |
| White | 137 | 63% | 74% | 85% |
| Other ethnic group | 11 | 5% | 2% | 2% |
| Prefer not to say | 30 | 14% | – | – |
| TOTAL | 216 | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Responses are grouped and reported according to these categories:
- White
- minority ethnic
- not disclosed
Appendix 2: List of responding organisations
Of 112 responding organisations, 104 shared their organisation name. These are:
- Association of Research Managers and Administrators
- Aston University
- BASES, the British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences
- Bath Spa University
- BBSRC EDI External Advisory Group
- Biochemical Society
- British Academy of Management
- British Geological Survey
- British Science Association
- Brunel University London
- Cambridge Enterprise
- Cardiff Metropolitan University
- Chartered Association of Business Schools
- Cockcroft Institute
- Coventry University
- Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC)-Vitae
- Department of Chemistry, University of York
- Department of Maths, University of Manchester
- Digital Catapult
- Disability Matters
- Diversity in UK Polar Science Initiative
- Division for the study of Law, Society and Social Justice, University of Kent
- ED&I External Advisory Board of STFC Council
- EPSRC (no further details were provided by the respondent)
- ESPRC EDI Strategic Advisory Group and Strategic Advisory Teams
- Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Science and Health
- ESRC South Coast Doctoral Training Partnership
- Faculty of Arts, Cultures and Education, University of Hull
- Faculty of Social Sciences Postgraduate Research Management Team, University of Sheffield
- GW4 Alliance (universities of Bath, Bristol, Cardiff, and Exeter)
- GuildHE
- Heriot-Watt University
- Humanities Division, University of Oxford
- Imperial College London
- Innovate UK KTN
- Institute of Historic Building Conservation
- John Innes Centre
- King’s College London
- Leeds Trinity University
- Liverpool Health Partners
- Liverpool John Moores University
- Loughborough University
- Microbiology Society
- Middlesex University
- Mondelez UK
- N8 CIR WHPC Chapter
- National Association of Disabled Staff Networks (NASDN) STEMM Group
- National Biofilms Innovation Centre
- Natural England
- New Ionian Academy / Neuro-Equity
- Norwich University of the Arts
- Nottingham Trent University
- Parents Network
- Practical Diversity & Inclusion
- Queen Mary University of London
- Queen’s University Belfast
- Reckitt
- Research & Innovation Services EDI Best Practice Group
- Royal Academy of Engineering
- Royal Society of Biology
- Royal Society of Chemistry
- Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance
- Sezanne Marine Ltd
- Social Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre anti-racism working group
- Scottish Graduate School of Social Science
- Socio-legal Studies Association
- STFC – collective response from STFC’s Council
- Training Adult Literacy, English as a Second Language, and Numeracy Teachers
- The Academy of Medical Sciences
- The Alan Turing Institute
- The British Heart Foundation
- The Daphne Jackson Trust
- The Inclusion Group for Equity in Research in STEMM
- The Information School, The University of Sheffield
- The Institute of Mathematics and Its Applications, the London Mathematical Society and the Royal Statistical Society
- The Operational Research Society
- The School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University
- The University of Cambridge
- The University of Southampton
- UCL Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering
- University and College Union
- UKRI Parents Network
- UKRI Women’s Chapter Staff Network
- Universities Policy Engagement Network and Scottish Policy and Research Exchange
- University College London
- University of Aberdeen
- University of Birmingham
- University of East Anglia
- University of Edinburgh
- University of Exeter
- University of Glasgow
- University of Leeds
- University of Manchester
- University of Manchester Cottonopolis Collective
- University of Nottingham
- University of Reading
- University of Sheffield
- University of Strathclyde
- University of Sussex
- University of Warwick
- University of Westminster
- University of Wolverhampton
- Wellcome Trust
- Waste & Resources Action Programme