Tickell Research Bureaucracy Review
Tickell Review of Research Bureaucracy
Independent review examining the bureaucratic burden on UK researchers. Made 28 recommendations to reduce unnecessary administrative load on academics and streamline research governance.
22recommendations
22Not Yet Responded
Government Response
Government accepted all 28 recommendations alongside publication.
29 July 2022
Recommendations
Recommendation 1
Government departments that fund research should work together to ensure there is greater alignment of assurance approaches, removing duplication. UKRI should take forward action to achieve greater alignment and coordination across UKRI Councils.
Recommendation 10
Funders and recipients should ensure there is adequate time for the completion of all necessary tasks (including providing assurance information) between the issue of the award letter and the start of the project.
Recommendation 11
Universities and research organisations should wherever possible use standard templates for contracts and collaboration agreements, recognising that this would not just be faster, but would also facilitate third-party collaborations.
Recommendation 12
Wherever possible, funders should build in flexibilities including no cost extensions within manageable parameters to reduce delays in addressing project changes and the number of queries funders receive.
Recommendation 13
Ethical and other regulatory approvals should be the responsibility of the lead partner on a multi-institution research project and counterparties (including in the NHS) should not require additional duplicative approvals.
Recommendation 14
For the higher education sector, Jisc should lead on the creation of sector-wide groups responsible for overseeing the development and further integration of the research information ecosystem, including research management data.
Recommendation 15
Funders, universities and regulators should ensure interoperability and improved data flows are considered as integral to the design and implementation of any new digital systems.
Recommendation 16
For existing systems, approaches to improving the flow of data between different platforms should be explored using, for example, application programming interfaces, point to point integration and machine learning.
Recommendation 17
Wherever possible, research organisations should examine the feasibility of delegating research-related approvals to research managers and officers who are closer to research.
Recommendation 18
Universities UK should bring universities together to find new platforms and methods for working together on research management issues such as increasing risk appetite, streamlining burdens including through greater standardisation.
Recommendation 19
If they do not already have them, research organisations should establish "Trusted Funder" policies to enable projects to proceed at risk, within certain parameters.
Recommendation 2
Government should facilitate closer working with other funders, including charity funders, to increase coordination and reduce assurance burdens on the sector.
Recommendation 20
Government, funders and regulators should undertake wide ranging consultation with research organisations prior to the introduction of new regulatory or other requirements.
Recommendation 21
Government and funders should proactively communicate on new and emerging regulatory issues. The Research Collaboration and Advice Team (RCAT) model providing support on national security matters is good practice in this regard.
Recommendation 22
Funders should ensure important messages about research are sent to research office contacts as well as Vice Chancellor/Pro-Vice Chancellor Research.
Recommendation 3
Funders and research organisations should develop collective approaches and resources to support institutions in managing their assurance processes.
Recommendation 4
Funding bodies should explore the function and benefits of self-certification and/or earned autonomy for institutions with a robust track record of assurance.
Recommendation 5
Funders should experiment with application processes to reduce burdens for applicants, (including two-stage application processes) where the information required increases in line with the likelihood of being funded.
Recommendation 6
Funders should work together to increase standardisation across their application processes in terms of the use of language and the questions they ask where appropriate. UKRI should facilitate this across Research Councils in the first instance.
Recommendation 7
Funders should review what adaptations will be needed to assessment processes to take account of changes to application models. This should include the information necessary for national security assessments alongside innovative approaches from the use of peer reviewer triage to limit the number of applications requiring full peer review to experimenting with new models such as randomly allocated funding.
Recommendation 8
Funders should ensure that application processes support their commitments to equality, diversity and inclusion.
Recommendation 9
Funders should remove the requirement for letters of support from applications in most circumstances.