探花视频

UKRI chief: ‘Do fewer things in research but do them really well’

Ian Chapman backs ministers’ calls for more research specialisation by universities in first public comments since taking over at ?9 billion-a-year research funder

Published on
September 4, 2025
Last updated
September 5, 2025
Source: UKRI

The new chief executive of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) has warned university leaders that their institutions might need to start doing “fewer things but doing them really well”, stating he is wary of a “crumbs for everyone” approach to funding.

In his first public comments since taking over at the ?9 billion-a-year research funder last month, Ian Chapman told Universities UK’s annual conference that the UK’s academic research was, overall, “incredibly good” and “properly world class” but he backed?ministerial calls for institutions to specialise further?on the types of research they pursue.

“For too long we have tried to do more than our budget allows. Frankly we have tried to cover all bases,” said Chapman, a former chief executive at the UK Atomic Energy Authority.

“We should know what we’re really good at and do it really well so I’m a big advocate of doing fewer things but doing them really well. Instead of crumbs to everybody, it [should be a] meal to the things that we have real growth potential in,” Chapman told the event at the University of Exeter on 4 September.

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

Urging vice-chancellors to sharpen their institutions’ focus, he said: “I would encourage you to think about what is your specialism, what are you really deeply good at, and invest heavily in that strategy.”

Chapman said he was heartened by ministers’ desire for UKRI to play a role in supporting economic growth through its research funding.

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

“What I think is really pleasing about this government is that they are saying these are the things that we want to prioritise. These are our growth sectors, these are the bits that we’re going to double down on,” he said.

“Expect UKRI as a government arm’s-length body to follow that plan – the [government’s] industrial strategy is clear these are the areas that we see as high growth potential for the country, and we will be backing those things,” said Chapman, urging vice-chancellors “to respond in kind” to that call for specialisation.

Chapman, a nuclear physicist, explained, however, that this response to government priorities did not mean neglecting basic research.

“It’s a thing that matters to me personally very deeply. I’ve spent my whole career working in fusion energy. If you want to find a long-term research project then it is the longest of long-term research projects,” he explained on the decades-long search for an alternative to nuclear fission for energy purposes.

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

“So I really do believe in the benefit of long-term curiosity-driven research. But…addressing government priorities and helping companies to grow and importantly to scale are super important and we don’t do enough on that,” he said.

Addressing the vast portfolio of research supported by UKRI, which supports about 22,000 projects across hundreds of disciplines, he added: “That portfolio of IP is insanely valuable – if we thought of it as a portfolio, we should be able to do so much more, leveraging both industry participation and, frankly, investment capital into that portfolio. That then allows us to spin the wheels and do more of the curiosity-driven research,” he said.

On winning the case for more research funding, he continued: “We talk about how much money we’re spending, what intervention we’ve made and things that we’ve started but we talk very little about outputs and outcomes. I would like us to think more in terms of delivery and outputs because frankly that is what buys you autonomy. It’s what buys you trust from the government, from our backers.”

Stating the UKRI was there “to serve the taxpayer”, Chapman said it was important to make the case publicly for the value of research by relating it to people’s lives. “We take a lot of taxpayers’ money. We need to help improve the lives and, even more importantly, the livelihoods, the economic opportunity for the taxpayer. We’re entrusted with a lot of public money and so we need to deliver outcomes and outputs for them,” he said.

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

“Being crystal clear about what we’re trying to get out and being focused on driving that to the very end, rather than worrying about the next thing we can start – this would be certainly a thing I want to imbue in my organisation,” he said.

Rather than seeking to “do more”, universities should “focus more”, said Chapman. “I firmly believe that if you focus and you deliver, then you buy trust – you buy trust from your investor, which is the taxpayer in our case.”

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

“If they say, OK, we see how this is a benefit to us and it’s helping to drive the economy – and we feel it and see it – then the government puts in more money and allows you to do more,” he said.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (12)

Well yes exactly. What we need to do is identify those things that we do best but do less of them better, going forward.
Are you Anna Rampton?
.
Problem is with focusing research funding is that you create very strong lobby's which is not necessary in the interest of supporting the best research, funding then involves semi-professional lobbyist and old boys establishment in a given area rather than brilliant science by emerging new talent. How can you ever grow new seeds of early stage researchers setting up their new labs away from former supervisors?
"We need to help improve the lives and, even more importantly, the livelihoods, the economic opportunity for the taxpayer" Says it all really. How is improving livelihoods more important than improving lives? It doesn't even make sense - how is it possible to improve livelihoods without improving lives, and if you improved livelihoods, but made lives worse, why would you want to do it? And it also misunderstands business model of research universities. For the most part even research universities depend on teaching income. But those universities need to offer their academics the opportunity to do research, elese how do they keep their cutting edge staff? For example our students get to learn about cutting edge applications of AI in bioscience, way before its any textbooks. This is because we employ someone doing that research (me). But if my university decided that wasn't what they would focus on, they wouldn't just lose that research, they'd also loose the ability to do that teaching (because I'm not staying somewhere I can't do research). If they focused on something else, and dropped that research, then people would have to pick up the teaching in that area, which assumes people with other specialities have the ability or desire to do that, even at a basic level. Research intensive universities only function because research supports the ability to have a very diverse range of cutting-edge teaching.
This is an excellent example of the link between teaching and research. However, it might be an outlier as it were. if I am being honest, at least in my area, you do not need to be researching an area to teach it effectively at undergradiate level. Indeed as class sizes expand and staffing is reduced, a lot of my teaching (and that of my colleagues) is generalist in nature rather than specifically research led. Indeed we also emply a substantial number of staff on "education" contracts which only involve teaching and admin sand they are often the best and most popular teachers. Much of it used to be done by postgrad TAs (before the money dried up). Sometimes I know very little about the area I might be asked to teeach (especially when teaking over from departing colleagues) and have to swot it up quickly. Simetimes it might involve an area I have not taught for many years. Obviously, at doctral level, you really must be a serious researcher to be able to supervise competently effectively in whatever area. Some of my third-year modules are also seriousl;y research-led and could only be taught by me, but they are optional of course. So on the whole, I am extremely sceptical about the research-teaching relationship even in the "research intensive universities". I understand that politically this is an argument that is inconvenient and maybe I should not make it publicly, but it's my honest opinion and that of many others. And no-one reads this stuff anyway so who cares? But research led teaching is pretty much a luxury now at undergrad level
Rubbish. Focusing like this misses out on the unexpected, misses out on the contributions of other diverse subjects, both from the arts, humanities and stem. And wouldn't focus just perpetuate the dominance of a few universities at the expense of all others?
Well yes it would serve to make funding more selective and targetted at centres of research excellence. Of course, at a time of financial constraint it is a very reasonable argument (and should not be dismissed out of hand) to say let's focus what research resource we have more selectively and one that will appeal more widely. Obviously, it would disadvantage some colleagues but at leats they have jobs and we all enjoy teaching in any case. Of course, like any other strategy there will be negative consequences for some. To argue that the status quo should be maintained for the benefit of the unexpected, serendipitous, contribution which, by definition, is not expected is a hard one to make especially in terms of the current financial circumstances and if this chap were to make this to government, he would be laughred out of the room I fancy to the disadvantge of all.
It is a retread of the much parodied Betterness management line. Resource is tight and research is expensive, so the minister says do less research and focus that you do on areas where there is a demonstrable public benefit, and at the moment that means economic growth (livelihoods). We can criticise this of course but growth is flat lined and without c. 2% growth we cannot pay our bills so it cuts or taxes which are very unpopular. But we should not underestimate how bad things are and in Novemeber we will find out and I think this will be the very last of our worries.
Yes I understand why people argue for the status quo and improved or continued resourcing at the present level. It's in our interests and. as we know, there is no waste of any kind in the system. But we have to get realistic about how very bad things are at the moment, and getting worse. Tbh, I woulds just be grateful that you have a job at all now, whether you ahve to do more teaching and less research, so what? That's not the choice colleagues are currently facing in many universities. The choice is between having a job or not having a job. We are bettre playing ball with this chap, it might be a lot rougher when Reform come in to government, as it increasingly looks like they will.
Surely with the approach on focusing on one area of research heavily you inherently risk financial resilience through being at the potential whim of funding. If you invest in one area which then falls out of favour you have to start again. Is this really a good idea?
new
You may criticise the process oand the rational behind the selection of focus, though it is not an inherently unreasonable strategy, but to caricature it as an irrational "whim" is unfair. Prioritizing and focusing are things we all have to do in our personal and professional lives. Resource I am afraid is scarce, just to suggest we continue to fund all we do without reviewing or questioning its value on the off chance that something unidentified might be lost is not sensible in my view. And indeed it is not an argument that can be made to government. They hold the purse strings and will requore a robust and detailed research plan if appropriate funding is to be maintained. The focus on the growth agenda is not unreasonable in the current climate.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT