WEEKEND READING: The changing geography of research

In November HEPI, with support from Elsevier, hosted a roundtable dinner to discuss the changing geography of research. This blog considers some of the themes that emerged from the discussion.

Fifty years ago, less than 10 per cent of authors of research articles worked in low and middle-income countries – those in which average annual incomes are below around $14,000. By 2024, the proportion of research authors from these countries had reached 56 per cent. Even excluding China, 28 of them, combined, had more authors than the 27 countries of the European Union plus the UK.

Meanwhile, since 1990, the number of doctorates awarded in China has gone from a few thousand to more than 80,000, while Brazil and India now graduate approximately 30,000 doctorates per year, compared to the UK’s 25,000.

What this means for research collaboration, for research funders and for the UK’s future as a leading research nation was the topic of a recent roundtable discussion, hosted by HEPI in conjunction with the academic publishers Elsevier and attended by senior university and research leaders and funders.

Participants in the roundtable agreed that the research landscape was experiencing major change, with the centre of gravity shifting away from traditional western and northern dominance, to countries including China, India, Brazil, Iran and Mexico, and that the pace of change was accelerating.

This was not just happening in terms of numbers of researchers and research outputs but also in terms of their quality. Many countries not historically considered strong in research are producing original research at scale, developing cross-disciplinary fields and paying close attention to research culture as well as to convergence with the United Nation’s sustainable development goals.

Participants suggested that research in European countries, including the UK, France and Germany, may be moving more sluggishly due to out-dated hierarchies, infrastructure and equipment that is expensive to maintain. University and research leaders often feel overlooked by their governments, which face pressures to direct funding elsewhere, in contrast to Low and Middle Income Countries where Governments are actively driving research and innovation growth.

This shift may not necessarily be negative, participants in the roundtable recognised. Any overall increase in research is a good thing for the advancement of knowledge worldwide, and more postgraduates mean more post-doctorates wanting to travel and more researchers seeking partnerships.

Participants noted the symbiosis between research strength and economic strength, with one tending to feed off the other. Perhaps it is time for science to move elsewhere, suggested one speaker. “We’ve had a good run.”

But he questioned what it could mean for the future nature of science. While it may not be worse, it was likely to be different in terms of ideas around disciplines, education and working practices and “we are going to have to live with that world”.

Many felt that for the UK, a long-time research power, the prospect of relative decline this presented should be ringing alarm bells.

One speaker asked: “Are we Rome?”

Others suggested that it wasn’t that simple. Optimists pointed out that the UK still enjoys extensive soft power and respect for its research and education system. It has one of the highest proportions of co-authored research publications in the world and clever people continue to want to work and study here. Even if its share of world research and researchers is declining, the numbers involved remain high.

On the other hand, pessimists argued that if other countries build up their own university systems, they will have less need to send their students and graduates or even post-doctorates to the UK. One speaker noted the impressive lab equipment he had seen in China.

Meanwhile, old hierarchies still dominate global research structures, partly helped by the English language. While the UK benefits from that, participants were challenged to consider reform of global research governance to better reflect the new geography of research.

Some participants expressed concern about UK research becoming increasingly inward-looking, in response to pressures from politicians to concentrate on particular research areas related to Government priorities.

It was noted that the UK conveys mixed messages around attracting talent from overseas. Other countries make clear they want to be global research players; UK politicians, appealing to anti-immigration sentiment, are more ambivalent. And while the EU presents the only research bloc big enough to compete with China and America, the UK is barely in it.

Some pointed out that the UK is unusually reliant on its universities since it lacks independent research institutes. Others highlighted the country’s problems with scaling up spin outs.

What about potential solutions?

One speaker suggested that while having lots of exciting science happening around the world was wonderful, it threatened what in the UK had become an industry. Perhaps it was therefore time to make more of a case for higher education not as an industry but as a public good.

Another suggested learning from other countries about how to work in more equitable and meaningful partnerships with partners around the world and how to conduct research in different – and perhaps more cost effective – ways.

One warned that higher income countries often fell into the trap of seeing partnerships with lower income countries in terms of offering aid. Collaborations should instead involve both sides recognising each other’s strengths and both benefitting in an equal way.

Similarly, when it comes to attracting overseas students, the UK should think in terms of how its own students benefit from the arrangement, said another. Curricula may also need to be re-assessed to make them more suitable to the different world future researchers will face.

One suggestion was to identify where the UK is particularly strong and to become more competitive by developing those specialisms. Another participant pointed out that it was important not only to identify specialisms that others do not have, but to identify areas where others are also strong and where collaboration can therefore be especially productive.

Work is needed to put in place facilities and mechanisms to enable those researchers who would benefit from working together to find each other, said one participant. Another said it was important to ensure a balance between a centralised system for identifying potential collaborations and allowing individual researchers and departments to find their own partners.

It is not just about strategies led from the top, one speaker stressed. Those working across global borders need a rich understanding of the context in which institutions in other countries operate and how collaborations are conducted on the ground.

Researchers also need to be aware that the current world is a hugely unstable one and to be prepared to meet that challenge with equal partners.

The kind of challenges involved was made clear by one speaker who pointed out that America has recently turned off satellite climate data, which had been free for low and middle income countries to use, and has withdrawn from Antarctica its last ice-breaker ship, which monitored the melting of ice shelves threatening coastal cities.

The result of this loss of data could affect not only individual countries of all income levels around the world but the very planet they occupy.

Elsevier’s have produced a useful briefing paper on these issues: The changing geography of research.