In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on ensuring people with ‘lived experience’ are involved in co-producing research and policy-making at practical, local level. However, there has been little discussion around what the people with lived experience themselves think about getting involved.
A recent webinar run by Transforming Evidence – a community that shares research and expertise about how evidence is made and used, across policy and practice domains – asked that very question: how can we make lived experience a genuine part of evidence informed policy?
So, it was especially refreshing to hear the views of Lynn Laidlaw during the Transforming Evidence webinar. Because of her experience as a patient with multiple health conditions, Lynn has had the opportunity to use her own lived experience to become a public contributor and peer researcher, and to influence policy-making in the field of health.
Lynn gave a personal, reflective account of the issues raised by her own lived experience. She admitted that the process of becoming involved in research caused her to reflect on how she fit into the process, raising questions concerning imposter syndrome and identity:
“Who was I? A researcher, or a person of lived experience? Could I be both? Did one negate the other?”
Lynn also underlined that involving people with lived experience in an equitable and ethical way requires time and resources and they should be offered remuneration for their time and effort.
She went on to discuss some of the key questions surrounding the involvement of people with lived experience:
Power
The phrase ‘lived experience’ holds power and weight in these ‘new’ political landscapes but what power do the people with the lived experience hold? And who decides the criteria for lived experience – can you really say to someone who has possibly been though a traumatic event that their trauma isn’t ‘lived experience enough’ to participate?
Culture
One of the biggest questions raised by Lynn was are you, as a person with lived experience, just a ‘tick box’ for the people who are organising a research study? This raises further questions as to how can we make people with lived experience feel valued in their opinions and their experience, how do we give them a value equal to those that are conducting the research, or the policy makers that will implement the research?
Emotions
Lynn also considered questions relating to emotional issues that are faced while being consulted to work on different projects. The biggest of these is: “does one person’s lived experience speak for all people with lived experience”? The answer would logically be no. However, this distinction is rarely made when consulting people with lived experiences as the panels are generally small. The fear of not being ‘representative enough’ of all people with lived experience is something that is continually at the back of their mind when going forward to give views and experiences and try and help inform policy for the better.
Intentions
Lynn’s final observations concerned the power participants have to ensure that their experiences and views make it into policy. The intentions behind a consultation of views is crucial for ensuring that a person with lived experience feels less of a charlatan. They will feel increasingly more valued members of society if the policies they are consulted on make it off the shelf and into mainstream politics. It is not enough to ask people for their time, views, and opinions to appease society and then do nothing with the information they have given you. It, again, raises interesting questions about making people feel valued and not just used as a token or to ‘tick a box.’
Final thoughts
Lynn very clearly demonstrated the importance and value of showing respect for people with lived experience. Because by listening to and learning from people with relevant lived experiences, policy makers are more likely to make decisions that make a positive difference.
The recent appointment of Marc Lemaître as the European Commission’s director general for research and innovation (R&I) has returned Europe’s R&I gap to the spotlight. Previously head of DG REGIO, the Commission’s directorate for regional development, Lemaître’s experience and knowledge of regional disparities is widely seen as a welcome boost in addressing the historic disparity in the flow of research funding between eastern and western Europe.
The experience of successive European Union (EU) R&I framework programmes shows that the ability to successfully conduct transnational research projects often varies dramatically between regions and countries. Despite successive programmes promising equality of opportunity and access, some countries remain distinctly disadvantaged when research excellence is the determining factor.
The EU has recognised that such disadvantage can take a variety of forms. These include a lack of scientific infrastructure, the ability to establish or access networks or to maintain and retain talents, and the capacity to overcome structural barriers at institutional, regional or national level.
Beginning with Horizon 2020 (2014-2020), the EU introduced measures to widen participation and targeted the 13 countries that had joined the Union since 2004, namely, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
This increased focus led to mixed results. The Commission reported that Widening countries gradually increased their participation throughout Horizon 2020. While Widening country participation represented 4.2% of the total budget of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), this had risen to 4.8% of the Horizon 2020 budget by 2018 and 5.1% in February 2021. However, the average investment in R&I in the EU was 2.3% of GDP by 2020 – below the 3% target. Of the 13 Widening countries, only Slovenia and Czech Republic invested more than 2%.
Countries that joined the EU after 2004 continue to have relatively under-developed R&I systems, score lower on the EU’s R&I league tables and crucially, when it comes to framework programmes, are far less successful in securing grant funding compared to their research powerhouse neighbours. If the actions introduced between 2014 and 2020 were insufficient to bridge the research gap, what could be done next?
Widening in Horizon Europe
New Widening Participation and Spreading Excellence actions were introduced as part of Horizon Europe (2021-2027) to provide additional support to Member States, Outermost Regions and Associated Countries with low participation rates in FP7 and Horizon 2020 projects to widen their participation in the current framework programme.
Furthermore, the total budget allocated to Widening actions under Horizon Europe has tripled compared with those supported under Horizon 2020, with these actions representing 3.3% of the total €95.5 million Horizon Europe budget. In 2023-24 alone, more than €900 million has been allocated to actions under the Widening Participation and Spreading Excellence Work Programme.
All organisations eligible for Horizon Europe may participate in Widening actions, but only those based in Widening countries may act as coordinators. All Member States classed as Widening countries under Horizon 2020 have retained this status under Horizon Europe, except for Luxembourg, which was replaced by Greece. In addition, the following Associated Countries may apply as coordinators: Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Faroe Islands, Georgia, Kosovo, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, North Macedonia, Serbia, Tunisia, Turkey and Ukraine.
Calls launched under the Widening Participation and Spreading Excellence component are divided into two destinations – Destination 1: Improved access to Excellence, to strengthen R&I capacities in Widening countries, and Destination 2: Attracting and mobilising the best talents, to support further progress on the free circulation of knowledge in a more efficient and effective R&I system.
Actions funded under the Widening Participation and Spreading Excellence programme include:
Teaming for Excellence: Creates new or modernises existing centres of excellence in Widening countries by supporting partnerships between beneficiary institutions in Widening countries and leading scientific institutions elsewhere in Europe.
Twinning: Boosts the networking activities of research institutions of Widening countries by linking them with at least two research institutions from two different EU or Associated Countries.
Pathways to Synergies: New under the 2023-24 Work Programme, this scheme aims to facilitate synergies between Horizon projects and funds under the cohesion policy in Widening countries. The goal is to help formerly isolated single beneficiaries of regional funding programmes to participate in cross-border collaboration in order to prepare for participation in Horizon Europe calls.
Excellence Hubs: Aims to improve innovation by enabling innovation ecosystems in Widening countries (and beyond) to team up and create better linkages between academia, business, government and society.
Hop-on Facility: Introduced for Horizon Europe, this mechanism allows a single participant from a Widening country to join an ongoing project under Horizon Europe Pillar 2 and the European Innovation Council (EIC) Pathfinder topics.
Widening actions are also delivered via the framework of the European Research Area (ERA). ERA Chairs enable research institutions in Widening countries to host a leading researcher for a period of five years. ERA Fellowships enable researchers to undertake their MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowship in a Widening country, while ERA Talents support R&I investigators and organisations for cross-sectoral exchange of staff and academia-business collaboration for knowledge transfer with a focus on Widening countries.
Another mechanism by which the Commission supports Widening is through the COST (European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research) programme, which enables researchers lacking sufficient access to European and international networks to investigate a topic of their choice for four years. A single COST Action must involve at least seven different COST full or cooperating members, among which a minimum of 50% must be from inclusiveness target countries.
The Commission also encourages applicants to partner with Widening countries throughout its funding channels. For instance, one of the key objectives of the QuantERA ERA-NET Cofund in Quantum Technologies Cofund Call 2023 is to ‘spread excellence throughout Europe by involving partners from the Widening countries participating in the partnership’, while several calls launched under the Horizon Europe Clusters also encourage applicants to involve Widening countries.
Progress under Horizon Europe?
Two years into Horizon Europe, figures from the Commission’s Horizon Dashboard indicate that the average success rate of Widening countries in obtaining funding through Horizon Europe is approximately 20%. This figure is equal to the EU 27 average, suggesting that some progress is being made.
Despite this, signs of progress are tempered by the scale of the remaining gap. During Horizon Europe’s first two years, Germany proportionally received more than all the Widening countries combined. As the top-performing country, Germany received 15.5% of the total net EU contribution, compared to 14.3% shared between the Widening countries.
The scale of this gap at the structural level can be seen in the fifth edition of the EU Regional Competitiveness Index 2.0, published in March 2023, which measures the competitiveness of regions across the EU. While this report noted a ‘clear process of catching up’ in eastern and southern EU Member States between 2019 and 2022, it highlighted that the gap between more and less developed regions was widest on the report’s ‘Innovation’ sub-index of metrics and its pillars.
The report also highlighted the persistence of internal gaps within Member States. Some regions in countries including Romania, Slovakia and parts of Bulgaria were found to be moving away from the EU average, while the capital city regions of the three least competitive EU Member States were significantly more competitive than the other regions in these countries. This is a potential cause for concern as it puts pressure on the capital city region while possibly leaving resources under-utilised in other regions.
In this context, the extent to which central European funding opportunities alone can produce far-reaching results is contested. Published in June 2022, a special European Court of Auditors report argued that a real shift depends largely on national governments making R&I a priority to ramp up investment and reforms. While Widening measures can kick-start progress in Widening countries, on their own they lack enough power to create the changes needed in national R&I ecosystems.
In response to the European Court of Auditors, the EU Council adopted conclusions on the report in October 2022. The Council took note of the Court’s conclusion that genuine sustainable change requires continuous national investments and reforms in national R&I systems and called on the Commission to monitor participation levels and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the whole portfolio of Widening measures. If continuous significant imbalances emerge, the need for more tailor-made actions and targeted networking activities to achieve a wider level of participation and address disparities in participation should be assessed.
What are stakeholders saying?
A valuable resource for obtaining sector feedback on the success or otherwise of Widening actions can be observed in responses to a consultation into the past, present and future of the Commission’s Horizon programmes covering 2014-2027. This survey, which ran for 12 weeks from December 2022 to February 2023, enabled stakeholders to share their views on the performance of Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe to date, and to identify future priorities for Horizon Europe’s Strategic Plan 2025-2027. From this survey, a number of organisations offered their thoughts on the Widening Participation and Spreading Excellence programme.
In its submission, the Coimbra Group of European universities noted that the ambitions of Widening actions are welcome but stated that these dedicated actions risk diverting funds from other essential programmes, such as the ERC and MSCA.
The Group highlighted the potential pitfalls of singling out countries for Widening actions, warning that organisations in higher-performing countries should not see partnering with those in Widening countries as an act out of the ordinary in and of itself; instead, these countries should be regarded as standard partners. As such, the presence of dedicated Widening calls should not discourage organisations in Widening countries from applying to non-Widening actions elsewhere in Horizon Europe.
Coimbra recommended that the Commission reflect on why some Widening countries have such low participation figures, citing the example of Romania receiving no funding for Teaming activities despite submitting 44 such proposals, and to consider the role of national governments in stimulating participation rates. In addition, Horizon Europe applicants should be incentivised to include partners in Widening countries at the very start of the proposal preparation process as an alternative approach to the new Hop-on Facility.
Other recommendations include urging the Commission to issue equally relevant calls for all Widening countries in the future, rather than issuing dedicated calls for sub-groups of countries, and actively involving those countries in the consultation process when designing future funding instruments.
Coimbra’s concerns about the practicalities of Widening actions were echoed by the Danish Agency for Higher Education and Science, which welcomed the goal of the programme but warned that a shift in the Framework Programme’s focus away from excellence would be ‘detrimental’ to its attractiveness and the overall competitiveness of the EU. The Netherlands house for Education and Research suggested that the ideal end-result of the Widening programme would be to narrow the R&I gap so significantly that the programme’s existence would become ‘superfluous’.
Science Europe, which represents 40 national research funding agencies and research organisations from 30 European countries, noted that while developments under Horizon Europe were positive, challenges remain, with brain circulation below target levels and participation rates remaining imbalanced. While it regarded the Hop-on Facility as ‘interesting’, it noted that existing consortia are often disinclined to add new members once their projects are underway.
Regarding some of the practical challenges facing Widening countries, Science Europe warned that the increased size and budget of Pillar II projects makes it harder for those countries to take leading roles in projects, suggesting that a greater number of smaller projects should be supported to mitigate this. Nevertheless, it concluded that narrowing the gap in participation and R&I capacity across Europe should ‘remain a priority’.
The League of European Research Universities (LERU) offered practical proposals to ensure the programme achieves its desired aims. It noted that the ERA actions are ‘considered useful’ by Widening countries and suggested that these and other mechanisms found to be particularly effective could be prioritised and run more consistently to improve their effectiveness. LERU also advised the Commission to evaluate the success of the Hop-on Facility before dedicating further funding to its operation.
Somewhat contrary to Coimbra’s suggestion to avoid focusing on narrow subsets of countries, LERU hailed the positive impact of previous Twinning activities dedicated solely to countries with the very lowest participation rates in Horizon Europe, describing these actions as ‘crucial’. The Twinning Western Balkans call run in 2021 was cited as a particularly successful example which ‘should be repeated’.
The European Trade Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO) noted that measures to strengthen the participation rates of Widening countries have been an ‘important and positive’ development of Horizon Europe but cautioned that they were ‘far from sufficient’. It urged the Commission to take further steps to improve the R&I capabilities of Widening countries, and to specifically support schemes that develop capacity-building of their research institutions, especially those that will improve applied research capabilities.
EARTO also called for ‘attention and reconsideration’ regarding the Hop-on Facility, citing ‘serious hurdles’ to its practical implementation. This was echoed by the Polish Chamber of Commerce for High Tech Technology, which highlighted ‘many bottlenecks’ in the mechanism’s implementation.
The Chamber agreed with LERU that ERA Chairs and Twinning opportunities – in addition to the Teaming for Excellence scheme – have positive impacts for Widening countries and should be continued. However, it noted that research management and administration is ‘one of the weakest link(s)’ of research organisations in Widening countries. It recommended that the Commission establish dedicated calls to facilitate the exchange of best practices, shadow mentoring and knowledge transfer at a large scale to reach a significant number of R&I institutions.
Across these stakeholder submissions, a general consensus can be observed of organisations commending the ambitions of the Widening programme and highlighting successful measures, while urging the EU to go beyond efforts to improve participation rates in Horizon Europe and focus on the root systemic causes of the disparity in the R&I infrastructure of countries across Europe.
Recent developments indicate that the Commission is taking such concerns seriously. In March 2023, the Commission launched a call for expression of interest for Regional Innovation Valleys (RIVs) to strengthen and advance European innovation ecosystems. The RIVs will connect all EU territories and focus on addressing the innovation divide by harnessing deep-tech innovation. The ambition is to identify up to 100 regions committed to better coordinating their R&I investments and policies, and to collaborating on inter-regional innovation projects.
The Commission is also in the process of launching two calls for proposals in May 2023 under the European Innovation Ecosystems (EIE) part of Horizon Europe, and the Interregional Innovative Investments (I3) of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). With a focus on addressing the innovation divide, a total of €170 million is allocated (€100 million and €70 million respectively).
ResearchConnect provides ongoing coverage of research funding and policy developments to support the international research community. We offer a user-friendly database containing a global source of research opportunities, covering a broad range of funders and disciplines. Our news content features the most recent research calls and funder updates, opening a window on the latest funding opportunities and developments to researchers worldwide.
The RTPI Awards for Research Excellence celebrate high quality, impactful spatial planning research carried out by chartered members and accredited planning schools from around the world.
For a seventh year, The Idox Knowledge Exchange has been pleased to sponsor three of the Awards categories – the Planning Practitioner Award, the Student Award, and the Sir Peter Hall Award for Research Excellence.
The Sir Peter Hall Award for Research Excellence
Hannah Hickman MA, MSc, MPhil, MRTPI, senior research fellow at the University of West England, was announced as the winner of the Sir Peter Hall Award for Research Excellence.
Ms Hickman’s research explored the under-researched and poorly-understood area of post-consent – the journey of a development from the point of permission through to delivery and on-going management. In particular it evidenced a worrying decline in design quality occurring at this point. It identified some of the causes, and considered what local authorities might do to address this decline.
Dr Meadhbh Maguire MRTPI PhD MSc MA, McGill University, School of Urban Planning.
This project considered the use of survey data in planners’ decision making processes. It found that survey methods ae heavily used within planning but are often influenced by political contexts.
Commended: Jianting Zhao, University of Hong Kong.
Mr Rifkin’s ‘Complex City: London’s Changing Character’ project made the case for character-based densification and provides recommendations for local authorities and cities attempting to meet growth demands while preserving local character.
Commended: Colin Robinson, Lichfields Planning
Student Award
Nicole Collomb BA (Hons) MSc, University of Brighton, department of architecture and design
Nicole Collomb was handed the Student Award for her research into the effectiveness of green factor policies, in which she identifies a need for robust evidence base for these policies to be successful.
Commended: Samuel ‘Nepo’ Schrade, University of Brighton
Also announced at today’s ceremony were the two recipients of the two £5,000 grants from the Practitioner Research Fund.
The winners of the grants are:
Oscar Wong for the project: ‘Strategic legacy planning for mega-events to achieve sustainable development goals: critical lessons learnt from London Olympics 2012 and Rio 2016’
Timon Moss for the project: ‘Regional community wealth building in Scotland’.
An exceptionally high standard
Dr Wei Yang FRTPI, RTPI President, said: “After receiving many brilliant entries for this year’s awards, the RTPI is now delighted to announce the stand-out projects across our four categories and recipients of the Practitioner Research Fund.
“I would like to congratulate all the winners and those who were shortlisted. The quality of submissions was exceptionally high this year, and we thank all the entrants for their submissions.
The RTPI is grateful to all applicants for sharing their fresh and innovative work. The awards give us the opportunity to celebrate the best and brightest work in the sector which is vital in driving the profession forward.
I would like to extend our great appreciation to the awards sponsors, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group and Idox Knowledge Exchange.
The awards would not be possible without our excellent judges, who have volunteered their time to review all of the entries in their categories and we would like to thank you all for your continued support for the research awards.”
John McLaren, Head of Business for Grantfinder and The Knowledge Exchange at Idox said:
“Idox is very pleased to be continuing our relationship with the RTPI and supporting the RTPI Awards for Research Excellence for another year”.
Further information about the 2021 RTPI Awards for Research Excellence, including the winners, judges and sponsors are available here.
You can also read our guest blog featuring the winner of the 2016 Sir Peter Hall Award, Dr Paul Cowie from the University of Newcastle, about the impact of winning the award for the Town Meeting project, which used theatre to engage communities in planning.
The impact of the coronavirus pandemic over the past 18 months has highlighted the vital role of information and knowledge services in supporting health and social care, public health, and medicine.
Last month’s Annual CILIPS Conference included a presentation about #HealthLibrariansAddValue – a joint advocacy campaign between CILIPS and NHS Education for Scotland (NES) which aims to showcase the skills of health librarians and demonstrate the crucial role of health libraries.
Library and knowledge services in the health sector have faced increased pressures and a multitude of challenges throughout the pandemic as they have continued to develop and deliver vital services and resources to colleagues under unprecedented restrictions and changed working practices. With the demand for trustworthy and reliable health information higher than ever, it is clear that well-resourced, coordinated and accessible knowledge services are essential.
Supporting the frontline
Throughout the pandemic, the work of health librarians has been vital in supporting frontline workers including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and social workers. Hospital library services have been directly involved in medical decision-making, providing evidence and resources to support patient care and the training of medical staff. As the information needs of the medical workforce have changed through the course of the pandemic, health libraries have had to be fast and flexible to provide time sensitive and urgent information to those on the frontline.
A project undertaken by the NHS Borders Library Service saw the creation of a new outreach service for local GPs, which involved the delivery of targeted current awareness bulletins, resource lists, and Covid-19 research updates, all of which directly informed the provision of primary patient care and helped to keep GPs up to date on emerging knowledge about the coronavirus.
Health Education England’s (HEE) Library and Knowledge team adapted their services to meet changing workplace needs, ensuring 24/7 access to digital knowledge resources, gathering evidence on how to keep staff safe while working, and developing training programmes to support virtual working practices for healthcare staff.
Supporting decision-making across sectors
Health librarians have played a major role in informing the UK’s pandemic response at a national level, aiding public health decision-making and facilitating partnership working across sectors.
Librarians from Public Health Scotland’s (PHS) knowledge services have worked closely with PHS colleagues to coordinate Scotland’s response to the pandemic. Their work included the creation of daily Covid-19 updates for PHS’ guidance teams, distributing the latest and most relevant research on key topics, and adapting these updates in line with PHS’ changing priorities (for example as their focus shifted from virus transmission to vaccine efficacy). Librarians at PHS have also been involved in creating evidence summaries to support specific Covid-19 research projects, such as an investigation into the relationship between Covid-19 and vitamin D. The evidence gathered by knowledge services helped PHS to formulate their response on the issue and make national recommendations relating to vitamin D intake.
On 12 July 2021, PHS launched their Covid-19 research repository, which is managed and maintained by the library team and collects, preserves, and provides access to Scottish Covid-19 research. This project aims to support policymakers, researchers, and the public by bringing together Scotland’s Covid-19 research in one place and making it easily accessible for all who need it. It is also aimed at reducing duplication of effort, which health librarians had recognised as a concern during the pandemic.
Similarly, Public Health England (PHE)’s library aimed to tackle the duplication of effort across England by creating their ‘Finding the evidence: Coronavirus’ page which gathers emerging key research and evidence related to Covid-19 and makes it accessible in one place. Many resources on the site are freely available and include a wide range of resources including training materials, and search and fact checking guidance.
Health libraries have also been informing decision-making across the social care and third sectors, with NES librarians facilitating digital access to research and evidence via the Knowledge Network and Social Services Knowledge Scotland (SSKS), and providing training and webinars to help users make the most of such services. NES librarians have been involved in partnership working with organisations such as the Care Inspectorate, SCVO, and Alliance.
Keeping the public informed
A key challenge for health librarians during the pandemic has been in dealing with the information overload and spread of harmful misinformation around Covid-19.
Library and information professionals have had a key role to play in providing trustworthy information to patients and the public, helping people to make informed choices about their health and wellbeing. As previously mentioned, librarians have helped agencies like PHS to deliver clear, meaningful, and authoritative guidance to the public, as well as making up-to-date and reliable Covid-19 research centralised and widely accessible to the public.
The World Health Organization (WHO) emphasises the importance of health literacy in enabling populations to “play an active role in improving their own health, engage successfully with community action for health, and push governments to meet their responsibilities in addressing health and health equity”. Health librarians have been at the forefront of efforts to promote and improve health literacy during the pandemic.
NES’ knowledge services have been delivering training and webinars to health and social care staff on how to improve people’s health literacy, and health librarians working with HEE have created targeted Covid-19 resources for specific groups such as older people and children and young people.
Final thoughts
Clearly, the work of health librarians has been crucial to the UK’s pandemic response and recovery so far, and advocacy campaigns like #HealthLibrariansAddValue are central to highlighting this important work and demonstrating its impact.
Looking forward, it is clear that innovative and high-quality knowledge services will be essential in a post-pandemic world as they continue to aid recovery, promote health literacy and support the health and social care workforce. As set out in HEE’s Knowledge for Healthcare framework, investment is required at a national and local level to build expertise and support the digital knowledge infrastructure which will be required.
Further reading: more on health from The Knowledge Exchange blog
Idox is pleased once again to be supporting the RTPI Awards for Research Excellence for 2021.
These awards recognise and promote high quality, impactful spatial planning research from RTPI accredited planning schools and planning practitioners in the UK, the Republic of Ireland and internationally.
The 2021 Awards competition is now open and there is still plenty of time to enter – the deadline for entries is 17 May 2021.
About the Awards
The RTPI Awards for Research Excellence are intended to:
recognise the best spatial planning research from RTPI accredited planning schools;
highlight the implications of academic research for policy and practice;
recognise the valuable contribution of planning consultancies to planning research; and
promote planning research generally.
The award categories are:
Early Career Researcher Award, aimed at researchers at the beginning phase of their academic careers;
Student Award, for students who are working towards or have recently completed a non-research university degree;
Sir Peter Hall Award for Wider Engagement, which recognises high-quality research that is likely to make an immediate impact beyond academia;
Planning Practitioner Award, open to non-academic planning practitioners and organisations conducting valuable research with the potential to inform planning policy and/or practice.
Idox: supporting the planning profession
As the UK’s leading provider of planning and building control solutions to local authorities, Idox actively engages with issues affecting the planning profession. And here at the Knowledge Exchange, we see our core mission as improving decision making in public policy by improving access to research and evidence.
This is the seventh time that Idox has given its support to the RTPI Awards for Research Excellence, and we will once again be sponsoring the Planning Practitioner Award, the Student Award, and the Sir Peter Hall Award for Research Excellence.
Winners in 2020
In 2020, the Sir Peter Hall Award for Research Excellence was awarded to Professor Anthony Crook from the University of Sheffield and Professor Christine Whitehead from the London School of Economics for their research looking at how far ‘unearned increments’, particularly those arising with planning permission, should be taxed for the public good.
Jacob George of Newcastle University won the Student Award for his research into the much-debated permitted development right for office-to-residential conversions, focusing uniquely on its social impacts in a city in northern England.
The Planning Practitioner Award for 2020 went to Lucia Cerrada Morato and Becky Mumford of the Place Shaping Team at the London Borough of Tower Hamlets for their research exploring the lives of residents living in high density and tall buildings.
The Early Career Researcher category was won by Dr Hannah Budnitz from the University of Birmingham, with Professor Lee Chapman, also from the University of Birmingham, and Dr Emmanouil Tranos from the University of Bristol. Their research found that by proactively addressing the accessibility of non-work destinations, planners can help telecommuters travel more sustainably.
Further details on the award categories, application guidance and entry forms, are available from the RTPI here. The closing date for applications to the awards is 5pm on Monday 17 May 2021.
The winners of the RTPI Awards for Research Excellence 2021 will be announced at an awards ceremony, to be held virtually by Newcastle University on the afternoon of Wednesday 8 September 2021.
Domestic violence is often described as a “hidden epidemic” within the UK. Even before Coronavirus forced the country into lockdown, support services faced funding and resourcing challenges, and many people fleeing domestic abuse already faced barriers to accessing support, but as social distancing has become the dominant policy response to suppress Covid-19, it is clear there have been unintended consequences for domestic abuse victims which have exacerbated the challenges in providing and accessing support.
An increase in reporting of domestic violence
Figures show that calls to domestic abuse services have increased significantly worldwide during the Coronavirus pandemic. Calls and online enquiries to the UK’s National Domestic Abuse line increased by 25% after the UK entered lockdown in March 2020. More than 40,000 calls and contacts were made to the National Domestic Abuse Helpline during the first three months of lockdown; in June, calls and contacts were nearly 80% higher than usual, according to the charity Refuge, who runs the service.
An investigation by the BBC’s Panorama found that three-quarters of victims told them that lockdown had made it harder for them to escape their abusers and in many cases had intensified the abuse they received and research by a team at LSE showed that while the overall level of domestic abuse crimes (not calls) have remained stable when compared with the long-term trend, calls to the Metropolitan Police between March and July which related to reports of domestic abuse increased by 11% compared with the same period in 2019.
This same research from LSE also noted some changes in the characteristics of the cases being reported, with calls more likely to be made by “third parties”, such as neighbours, and that while abuse by ex-partners fell by 9.4%, abuse by current partners and family members increased significantly – by 8.5% and 16.4% respectively.
In early May, the government announced a £76m package to support the “most vulnerable in our society”, including victims of domestic violence and modern slavery, rough sleepers and vulnerable children. However, with many charities which support victims of domestic abuse struggling with the financial fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic and facing a significant rise in demand for their services, concerns are being raised that the availability of specialist support could be reduced, meaning people exposed to domestic abuse may not be able to access the help they need.
Local level support for vulnerable people fleeing violence
Lockdown offered an opportunity for local authorities to think about the support offered to vulnerable people, including those who were homeless due to fleeing violence.
In Greater Manchester GMCA formed partnerships early on to secure accommodation for women fleeing violence to ensure they would have a safe space. The accommodation was intended for women who are homeless or facing homelessness, including rough sleeping or in shared supported accommodation where the service was unable to meet public health guidelines regarding Covid-19. This included women experiencing domestic abuse, trauma, or contact with the justice system as well as other multiple disadvantages. The service delivery model was designed to be a Trauma Responsive Service Model in order to create a safe and secure environment for each resident and to avoid further traumatisation. The process marked a departure from how cases of female homelessness due to domestic abuse would typically have been handled pre lockdown.
Halls of residence at the University of Cambridge were also offered to homeless women and their children after students vacated them early due to the pandemic. St Catherine’s College formed a partnership with Cambridge Women’s Aid to provide over 1000 nights of secure supported accommodation during the lockdown period.
In both instances the partnerships allowed for practical and quick solutions to provide support to vulnerable women, filling the support gap some traditional routes like refuge shelters were unable to fill because Covid 19- restrictions on the mixing of households meant that homeless and refuge centres were operating with a limited capacity.
Final thoughts
People fleeing domestic violence already faced significant barriers to finding the safety offered by refuge services, even before the lockdown imposed by the Coronavirus pandemic. But we know now that the pandemic has made it harder for survivors to leave an abuser or to seek help, that their experiences of abuse were made worse by the conditions imposed by lockdown and that the circumstances gave abusers more control than ever. When the pandemic is over the majority of local services expect to see a spike in people looking to access their life-saving support, but at the same time the pandemic has threatened the sustainability of the network of services which makes up this support, many of whom were already experiencing a funding struggle.
The work being done to help support vulnerable people fleeing abuse and people facing barriers to accessing refuge is more important now than it has ever been, and continuing support from government and effective partnership working will be vital to ensuring these services continue in the future.
If you need help or support in the UK, call the national domestic abuse helpline on 0808 2000 247, or visit Women’s Aid online.
Follow us on Twitter to find out which topics are interesting our research officers.
The UK is currently at the beginning of what is expected to be the deepest recession in living memory. From a policy point of view, governments around the world are facing the daunting task of navigating a route through uncharted territory. As the recently launched cross-institutional Economics Observatory noted last month, “sound and non-partisan advice is needed to inform decision-makers across all parts of society, about the choices they face in dealing with the crisis and the recovery”.
Key role of economic development and sustainability in the Covid-19 recovery
As statistical analysis suggests that Scotland’s GDP fell 18.9% during the month of April, and that in May output remains 22.1% below the level in February, the need for a recovery approach that is based on empowering regions, cities and local communities is clear.
The independent Advisory Group established by the Scottish Government to advise on Scotland’s economic recovery in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, published its report at the end of June. This identified interventions to support Scotland’s economic recovery within the context of the strategic goal of shifting to a greener, fairer and more inclusive economy with wellbeing at its heart.
New economic development initiatives and programmes in response to the pandemic have already been launched in Scotland. Some are focusing on helping specific sectors such as tourism and the creative industries. There is also a recognition that it is important during the recovery to build on current strengths, such as inward investment and low-carbon technologies.
What works in economic development
Here at the Knowledge Exchange, we’re committed to supporting the use of evidence to inform policy development and practice. So in the light of the current importance of economic development, we thought we’d highlight a useful resource which makes available the results of evaluation work and research in order to enhance decision-making and investment in the future.
Evaluations Online is a public portal providing access to a collection of evaluation and economic development research reports commissioned by Scottish Enterprise, Scotland’s main economic development agency.
Ensuring that public investment generates economic and social benefits, and long-term inclusive growth for Scotland is core to Scottish Enterprise’s remit. Making evaluation and research reports publicly available supports this aim, as well as ensuring transparency.
Established for over a decade, the site now contains over 750 research and evaluation reports dealing with different aspects of economic development activity, such as business support, investment, sector growth and improving skills. All of the reports are publicly accessible and free to access.
Learning lessons from previous programmes
Developing the economic response to Covid-19 is happening at a much faster pace than usual policy-making cycles. It is important, though, that spending and investment is focused on areas that will have most impact, and will also contribute to the overall goals of supporting jobs, protecting and progressing education and skills, and tackling inequality. Considering lessons from previous interventions when commissioning new projects or allocating funding, is one way to address effectiveness.
It’s worth repeating that repositories of evidence can help bring about better policy in a number of ways:
improving accountability by making it easier for people to scrutinise the activities and spending of public sector organisations;
improving the visibility and therefore the impact of evidence;
helping identify gaps in evidence by making it easier to compare research findings; and
increasing our understanding of what works (‘good practice’), not only in the activities covered, but also in evaluation and research methods.
Evaluations Online offers resources in key areas such as entrepreneurship, regeneration, social enterprise, economic inclusion, skills development, financing, inward investment and commercialisation, as well as by sector. In recent years, questions about inclusive growth and generating social value have also become more important policy issues.
Some of the most popular recent reports added to the site have focused on:
It’s clear that there are huge sectoral and regional challenges within the economy which will need faced immediately and in the longer term, as a result of Covid-19. Business practices have changed, as have all our lives. But we believe that the use of evidence and research will be fundamental in successful recovery and the transition towards a greener, net-zero and wellbeing economy.
The Knowledge Exchange work with Scottish Enterprise to manage the Evaluations Online portal.
Evaluations Online is a publicly accessible collection of evaluation and research reports from Scottish Enterprise. The reports cover all aspects of Scottish Enterprise’s economic development activities and are available for download at no cost.
Research and teaching in UK universities is widely recognised to be among the best in the world. In fact, the University of Oxford has topped the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2020 for the fourth year in a row.
However, in November last year, venture capital firm Octopus Ventures published a new measure of UK universities’ success – the Entrepreneurial Impact Ranking.
Instead of focusing on traditional measures of success, such as research, teaching and citation impact, Octopus Ventures’ new index measures UK universities’ effectiveness at translating this research into commercial success via the creation of “quality, investor-ready spinout companies”.
The results are a little surprising – with Queen’s University Belfast reaching the top spot, ahead of big players such as the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford.
In this blog post, we consider these findings in more detail, and discuss the potential to further capitalise on the potential of spinouts in the UK, and the key factors that underpin their success.
A brief history of spinouts
A university spinout has been defined by Octopus Ventures as “a registered company set up to exploit intellectual property (IP) that has originated from within a university”.
In other words, it is a company that has been established based on ideas derived from a university’s research. Often, former or current researchers are directly involved in the management team, and start-up funding is provided by the university (or one of its connected venture funds).
UK universities have been allowed to commercialise the results of their research since the mid-1980s. Between 2003 and 2018, approximately 3000 IP-based spinouts were created by UK universities.
Since 2010, there has been a notable increase in investment into university spinouts – both in terms of the number of deals achieved and the amount of money invested in university spinouts, from both private and public investment sources.
High rates of success
There is good reason for this increased investment – the survival rates of spinouts are high compared to other types of start up enterprise. Research published in 2018 by law firm Anderson Law found that nine out of ten spinouts survive beyond five years. By way of comparison, only two out of ten new enterprises survive beyond five years in the wider start-up environment.
Indeed, many spinouts not only survive, but thrive. The UK has produced a large number of very successful spinouts – for example, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, a University of Oxford spin-out company that has gone on to reach a £1.5 billion valuation. ARM Holdings is another example – a designer of smartphone chips, established by the University of Cambridge, and acquired by Japanese firm Softbank for £24 billion in 2018.
Unrealised opportunities
However, while the UK has seen a number of high profile spinout success stories, Octopus Ventures, argue that there is yet more untapped potential to be realised:
“The UK has produced a host of successful university spinouts, but there are many unrealised opportunities that have been left in labs or got lost on their funding journey. These could be worth trillions of pounds to the UK economy.”
This potential is perhaps best illustrated by looking at the unrivalled success of many universities in the United States. Take, for example, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). MIT has been the genesis for around 26,000 spinout companies, with a combined annual company turnover of US$2 trillion. This is a huge amount from one university – and is equivalent to around 65% of the UK’s entire annual GDP! The resultant spinouts have also created in the region of 3.3 million jobs. MIT clearly illustrates the huge potential that exists to capitalise on universities’ research.
Index results
Back in the UK, this massive potential has yet to be realised. Indeed, one of the key aims of the new Entrepreneurial Impact Ranking is to identify where this potential exists, and which universities are making notable progress towards capitalising on it.
The key data points included are:
total funding per university;
total spinouts created per university;
total disclosures per university;
total patents per university;
total sales from spinouts per university.
An interesting element of the index is that it is also adjusted to account for the total funding that a university receives. This means that it is not dominated by Russell Group universities simply on the basis of them receiving the most funding.
Indeed, Queen’s University Belfast was ranked first – putting it ahead of both the University of Cambridge (2nd place) and the University of Oxford (9th place) in terms of its production of spinout companies and successful exits, relative to the total funding received.
Queen’s University Belfast, through QUBIS Ltd, the university’s commercialisation arm, has had a number of spinout successes, including Kainos, Andor Technology, and Fusion Antibodies, all of which have been listed on the London Stock Exchange.
In Scotland, the highest ranking university was the University of Dundee (6th), which has had a number of successful spinouts, including Platinum Informatics, which specialises in the provision of software to analyse ‘big data’.
What makes a successful spinout company?
As well as identifying the most effective universities in terms of spinouts, the Octopus Ventures report also looks at the shared success factors that have contributed to their effectiveness.
There are three key factors:
Funding – Access to early funding is essential to success. Universities that ranked highly in the index were ones that raised funds to help get ideas off the drawing board. As Simon King, a partner in Octopus Ventures states: “Universities that enable early-stage proof of concepts and prototyping by making early-stage funds available, either internally through their own funds or through collaborative schemes with other funds are more successful at creating spinouts. That’s a key takeaway.”
Talent – the issue of talent is considered a ‘consistently challenging’ issue for spinouts. There is a huge demand for the right skills, and spinouts are often viewed as being high-risk propositions compared to more established enterprises. Other challenges include a lack of academics’ understanding of the business world, and limited incentives for them to engage in the commercial world in light of the pressure to ‘publish or perish’.
Collaboration – As well as university-industry collaboration, collaboration between different universities was a key factor in the creation of successful spinouts. Collaboration helps to increase both scale and capacity, whilst also helping to attract and retain top talent.
Future support for spinouts
Measuring the relative effectiveness of UK universities’ ability to commercialise their research provides a number of signposts for the future in regards to how best to support and further develop this potential.
This is increasingly important given the economic uncertainties surrounding Brexit and the availability of a number of European funding streams once the UK leaves the European Union.
The UK’s Industrial Strategy places a clear emphasis on academic entrepreneurialism as a driver of economic growth. And in 2018, the UK Government launched the £100m Connecting Capability Fund to support university collaboration in research commercialisation.
Commercialising academic research is far more complex, risky and expensive than establishing a typical start-up. But their potential contribution to the economy, and wider society, is huge.
Further reading: our blog posts on higher education
Evidence use in policymaking is nothing new. It has been talked about by policymakers, academics and professionals for the best part of ten years, and has been highlighted a lot, among other places, on this blog. Over the years various government initiatives have been set up to try to establish how best to use evidence and identify “what works” in relation to specific policy interventions, and “evidence-based” policymaking has become the catchphrase of policymakers across most sectors.
One of the newest books to be added to the Idox Information Service library reflects on the rise of “what works” as an approach to policy development. The book builds on discussions from the first edition of the book, and provides a sector-by-sector breakdown of how evidence is – and could be – used in policymaking across areas like health, the environment, education and criminal justice. It also offers some insight into appraising evidence and how to assess quality, as well as how evidence is used internationally, providing examples from the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Scandinavia.
As one of our key aims is to support and facilitate the sharing and use of evidence in the public sector, this book has been a welcome addition to our collection.
Making use of research across policy
In 2013, the UK government launched the What Works Network, which is now made up of 10 independent centres committed to “supporting the creation, supply and use of evidence” in specific policy areas including crime and policing, education and economic growth. The centres aim to improve the way government and other organisations create, share and use (or ‘generate, translate and adopt’) high-quality evidence for decision-making. According to the UK government, the initiative is the first time a government has taken a national approach to prioritising the use of evidence in decision making.
What Works Now? highlights research from Weiss (1979) which suggests that there are “7 types of research use”:
Knowledge Driven – research will be developed, applied and used once it has been produced
Problem Solving – research will be applied directly to a particular policy problem in order to solve it
Interactive – research forms part of a wider web of knowledge, policy and other research which all interact with each other
Political – research could (and probably will) be used to retrospectively provide support for a policy decision which has already been made
Tactical – research can be used as a tool to delay or deflect from decision making or action around a particular issue (i.e. “more research is needed in this area”)
Enlightenment – research informs policy through encouraging people to think and discuss particular ideas or concepts in a different way
Embedded research – research production is embedded in a wider contextual system which includes political priorities, the law and the media
Building a research base to support “what works”
Creating and disseminating research effectively have been cited as being key to creating a “what works” evidence base. A number of research institutes and think tanks contribute alongside real-life experiences of practitioners and other stakeholders to try and establish the conditions which support effective interventions and lead to positive policy outcomes.
One of the big discussions currently is around the creation of academic research to support what works programmes. Exploring what sort of research is useful to practitioners and policymakers and aligning this with the research agenda of academics and universities can help to create an effective supply chain of evidence to inform policymaking. However, often academics often do not engage with the policy process, or politicians politicise evidence, picking and choosing which findings to take notice of, which can distort the perception of what evidence is available in a particular area.
Encouraging fuller participation and a more robust appraisal of research from across the board is something which many institutions are trying to work towards. Research impact and knowledge exchange is now integrated into research funding and a growing number of people are working to feed research more effectively into the policy arena.
Evaluating research and evidence and judging which to take forward to inform policy decision making is also important. Along with discussions around assessing and labelling evidence the book considers how some of the main organisations in the UK concerned with promoting evidence-informed policy have gone about appraising evidence, weighing it up, assessing quality and “fitness for purpose” and taking account of non-research based forms of knowledge and evidence, such as the personal experience of practitioners.
Applying “what works” in practice
Applying “what works” in practice can be a challenge, especially in a setting that is perhaps very different from the conditions of a study that has been shown to produce successful outcomes from a particular intervention.
In the book, 10 guiding principles to support the use of evidence in practice are set out:
Translated – To be used research must be adapted and reconstructed to fit with local contexts. Simply providing findings is not enough
Ownership – Ownership of the research and allowing people to feel a sense of ownership over the development of research
Enthusiasts – Individual “champions” can be useful in ensuring that research actually gets used
Local context – Local context must be taken into account, particularly in relation to specific barriers and enablers which might help or hinder change
Credibility – Credibility of researchers and the people who support the research is key to ensuring that the research is taken seriously
Leadership – Strong leadership provides motivation, authority and integrity in the implementation of evidence
Support to implement change – Ongoing support to implement change is important, this could include financial, technical, organisational or emotional support
Develop Integration – Activities need to be able to be integrated with existing organisational systems and practices, changes do not happen within a bubble
Engage key stakeholders – To ensure effective uptake and buy-in key stakeholders should be involved as fully as possible form the earliest possible stage
Capture learning/ Effective evaluation – Don’t forget the importance of evaluation, identify what worked and what didn’t to help share learning and support future projects
Final thoughts
In theory, using evidence to inform policy sounds straightforward. The reality can be quite different. What Works Now? highlights that the “what works” agenda remains dominant across the policy landscape, even if the application or approach to it differs from policy area to policy area.
What counts as evidence is still disputed; getting evidence “out there” and encouraging academics to be involved in the policy process is still hard to achieve (although there is good work being done in this area to try and combat this); and context is still key to making evidence work in a particular environment.
Understanding evidence, and how to use it effectively has been a core aim of policymakers in the UK, and across the world for the many years. This book, and the supporting research outlined in it highlights that while evidence is still at the fore of policymaking, actually identifying what works and putting it into practice is a bit more of a challenge.
Members of the Idox Information Service can log into our website to request a loan of “What works Now?”
If you enjoyed this post, you may also be interested in:
Social Policy and Practice is a database supporting the smarter use of evidence and research within the UK. The key strengths of the database lie in the area of health and social care – it’s not a medical database, but instead examines social issues such as health inequalities, care of the elderly, children and family social work, and community health.
Social Policy and Practice is exclusively available via Ovid – the internationally-recognised leader in information services – and this April they are offering librarians, academics and researchers the chance to trial it for free!
UK-focused evidence and research
Social Policy and Practice is produced by a consortium of key organisations within the UK:
Centre for Policy on Ageing – Originally established in 1947 by the Nuffield Foundation, the Centre has a long and distinguished record as an independent charity promoting the interests of older people through research, policy analysis and information sharing.
Idox Information Service – Set up 45 years ago to support the use of research within local government, it now works with government and the private sector to increase understanding of public policy issues.
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children – The UK’s leading children’s charity, campaigning and working in child protection in the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands.
Social Care Institute for Excellence – A leading improvement support agency and independent charity working with organisations that support adults, families and children across the UK, by supporting the use of the best available knowledge and evidence about what works in practice.
A valued resource
Social Policy and Practice has been identified by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as a key resource for those involved in research into health and social care. And importantly, it supports a holistic approach to improving outcomes, by covering social issues such as poor housing, regeneration, active ageing, resilience and capacity building.
Social Policy and Practice covers all aspects of public health and social care. It is a must-have resource for anyone interested in the following topic areas:
Social work and social care services
Children and young people
Adults and older people
Families and parenting
Safeguarding
Health promotion
Health inequalities
Community development
Physical and mental health
Education and special educational needs
It also offers a holistic view of wider policy areas that impact on health, such as homelessness and deprivation.
The database brings together research and evidence that is relevant to researchers and practitioners in the UK. A large proportion of material relates to delivery and policy within the UK and the devolved nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but the database also covers material that is transferable from Europe and across the world.
Social Policy and Practice boasts over 400,000 references to papers, books and reports and about 30% of the total content is hard-to-find grey literature.
The importance of geographical focus
Research studies have shown that people searching for social science evidence tend to neglect the question of geographical and coverage bias within research sources. And that the geographical focus of databases is a potential source of bias on the findings of a research review.
In the last ten years many UK-produced databases have ceased – funding has stopped, publishers have closed or databases have been taken over by international publishers (which reduces the balance of UK content and the use of UK-relevant keywords).
So as a UK-produced database, Social Policy and Practice is uniquely placed to provide relevant results for UK-based researchers.
To see for yourself why so many UK universities and NHS bodies rely on Social Policy and Practice as a resource, visit Ovid Resource of the Month for instant access.
To find out more about the history of the database and the consortium of publishers behind it, read this article from 2016 which we have been given permission to share.
The Knowledge Exchange Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.