Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture research strategy 2027-2032: consultation analysis

4. Question 2

Theme: Overall strategy

Question 2: Do you think the research strategy will enable us to get the best research and scientific evidence from the best providers?

Introduction

The vast majority (59, 84%) of all consultation respondents answered question 2.

The vast majority of respondents think the research strategy has the potential to get the best research and scientific evidence from the best providers

The vast majority of respondents (all respondent types) said the research strategy has the potential to get the best research and scientific evidence from the best providers. This was reflected in the many responses which said ‘maybe’, ‘potentially’, or ‘in theory’ at this question – rather than an explicit ‘yes’ type response.

This was further reflected across responses which highlighted a diverse range of views and perspectives. These covered both suggestions for what would need to be in place to ensure the research strategy gets the best research and scientific evidence from the best providers and concerns or reservations about whether the current framing of the research strategy would enable it to deliver on this ambition.

Theme 1: Positive aspects of the proposed approach and what would need to be in place to ensure the research strategy gets the best research and scientific evidence from the best providers

The vast majority of respondents (all respondent types) under theme 1 reiterated comments they made at question 1 (for example, they highlighted aspects of the draft research strategy they supported) and/or set out what they felt would need to be in place to help ensure the research strategy gets the best research and scientific evidence from the best providers.

These respondents typically reiterated support for the new outcome focused approach and for the theory of change impact pathway, albeit as noted at question 1, respondents generally felt both could be further strengthened.

Respondents also highlighted the ‘proven track record’ of the MRPs and Centres of Expertise in their responses. This included but was not limited to responses from MRPs and Centres of Expertise themselves. These institutions were considered ‘well placed’ to enable high quality research to be taken forward as part of the SRP and that established long-term relationships would mean that research evidence would continue to be tailored to policy needs and could be delivered at pace.

Further, these responses mentioned MRPs and Centres of Expertise’ ‘world-leading’ research experience, their ‘international reputation for excellence’ and ‘unique set of skills, knowledge and talent’. Respondents said these qualities demonstrate their continued ability to support delivery of the SRP.

These responses suggested that continued engagement with these institutions would help ensure the research strategy gets the best research and scientific evidence from the best providers. That is, support was expressed for an approach that looked to build upon existing strengths within MRPs and Centres of Expertise – their in-depth knowledge, wealth of experience and expertise, and the good links between the institutions/organisations, with other academic and research institutions, and wider stakeholder networks developed over many years.

“We are pleased to see this well-developed strategy and recognise the continued high value it represents in the provision of relevant scientific research with a strong return on investment to RESAS.” Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh

“We think the SEFARI model has been a successful vehicle for the delivery of valuable research and has brought together a range of institutes and academic expertise across agriculture, plant health, food and drink, land use and environment.” Soil Association Scotland

“It is very encouraging that the MRPs in SEFARI have been identified as the main route to delivery and it is clear that these providers collectively have an internationally unique set of skills, knowledge and talent to deliver the programme successfully. The framework proposed…will need to be employed to properly build the appropriate links and alignment between projects to allow true inter-MRP collaboration and co-working in a way that is missing from the current SRP. This is particularly important when looking at the structure of the ARIs, many of which have multiple sub-questions which could only be answered through cross-MRP working.” Moredun Research Institute

“A continued focus and deepening of the relationship with MRPs is a valuable approach. These organisations have the required experience, expertise, and local knowledge to delivering impactful research.” Diageo

These respondents often identified other factors they considered essential to help ensure the research strategy gets the best research and scientific evidence from the best providers. Common points raised included explicit support for:

• research that is relevant to both policy and industry
• ensuring an appropriate focus on facilitating and resourcing interdisciplinary collaboration – and ensuring mechanisms to support genuine collaboration between academia, industry, communities, and other stakeholders
• the inclusion of Living Labs and innovation pathways as key mechanisms to help translate research into practice
• ensuring sufficient flexibility and agility within the SRP over the five-year cycle to 2032 – for example, scope for horizon scanning activity (in addition to addressing current policy needs and challenges) and the importance of embedding ongoing evaluation to ensure research remains relevant as needs evolve (for example, periodic reviews and adaptive funding mechanisms to respond to emerging challenges and priorities)

Theme 2: Concerns or reservations about whether the current framing of the research strategy would enable it to get the best research and scientific evidence from the best providers

Respondents (including third sector and other scientific organisations) identified concerns on the current framing of the research strategy. Central to these concerns were suggestions that delivery of the strategy perhaps relied too much on the MRPs and that other ‘providers’ should also be involved. Respondents said the approach outlined in the strategy could have implications or potential risks such as:

• excluding alternative research providers from the delivery of research – it was suggested that an approach that mainly used the MRPs may exclude connections with other research providers or that an inward-looking emphasis on Scottish providers may limit innovation or collaboration with a broader range of providers across the UK and internationally
• delivering research that lacked practical relevance – there were concerns that research may be too theoretical or driven by researchers’ interests rather than policy, industry, or community needs, with some respondents emphasising the inherent value of practice-based knowledge alongside traditional academic research outputs
• placing a focus solely on ‘scientific research’ at the expense of other forms of research such as ‘social sciences’ and ‘arts and humanities’

These respondents advocated for an approach that ensured greater engagement beyond the MRPs in order to get the best research and scientific evidence from a wider range of providers with expertise and experience. There were also suggestions for the strategy to support new ‘research actors’ and to ‘foster new [research] talent’.

“It is essential that open, competitive access is utilised alongside researchers at SEFARI so that universities, third sector organisations and other research organisations can lead where they are best placed to do so.” National Trust for Scotland

“Broaden the definition of ‘best providers’ - focusing only on established academic institutions may exclude innovative work from independent researchers, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), citizen science networks, and local communities. Scotland’s environmental and agricultural challenges require diverse expertise, including practical, place-based knowledge. The strategy should actively include alternative research actors, especially those with strong records in applied science and interdisciplinary work.” Individual respondent

“The strategy in its present form follows a well-trodden path. While there are benefits in stability and continuity of funding, there is also a risk that established researchers and established institutions continue to elaborate on their existing research topics rather than ask new questions or address old questions in new ways. This is not a criticism of the institutes and their researchers.” Nourish Scotland

“Scotland’s future research excellence depends on fostering new talent and expanding regional research capacity. Funding and support should be available not only to top institutions but also to grassroots and regionally embedded actors with innovative ideas and local insight.” Merman Conservation Expeditions Ltd

Some respondents (including Research Institutes and Centres of Expertise and other scientific organisations) who said the research strategy has the potential to get the best research and scientific evidence from the best providers emphasised that it would be important for the Scottish Government to draw on lessons learned from the experience of previous SRP funding cycles. These respondents suggested that the Scottish Government could take further steps to ensure the final research strategy:

• supports novel exploratory research (that is, novel higher-risk science as a fundamental underpinning for application development) in addition to the focus of many of the ARIs on the application of existing knowledge
• enables more collaborative, cross-sector models – the research strategy could look at ways to incentivise co-designed projects and equitable partnerships
• makes effective use of the Scottish Government funding to lever funds from other sources to supplement the strategy – that is, used as a basis for attracting other funding and co-operative research with other institutions both within and outside Scotland
• strengthens the emphasis placed on innovation – embedding this more strongly in the research strategy would both enable innovative approaches and support new entrants
• supports open science and transparent data-sharing – it was suggested that all research findings should be made publicly accessible and formatted in a way that supports reuse and policy integration
• addresses barriers in data integration and decision support to ensure Scotland makes the best use of the research undertaken
• strengthens internal links and connections across Scottish Government – to ensure that the flow of evidence into policy is systematic and consistent and not dependent on individual relationships or areas of historical strength (that is, mechanisms that reduce fragmentation and support knowledge sharing, such as cross-project learning networks or thematic coordination roles)

Respondents who did not think the research strategy would deliver the best research and scientific evidence from the best providers

A (very) small number of respondents (primarily individual respondents) did not think the research strategy would get the best research and scientific evidence from the best providers. These responses covered a range of opinions, including that:

• the proposed approach largely excludes alternative research providers from the delivery of research
• MRPs did not always maintain meaningful engagement with end-users and could be focused on academic interests that did not align closely with the practical needs of policy or business
• there was a lack of coordination between MRPs and Centres of Expertise
• MRPs may not have all the technical expertise and capabilities required – for example, data modelling and software engineering were mentioned in these responses
• there could be a risk of ‘confirmation bias’ when using Research Institutes that receive much of their funding from government – there was a call for greater involvement from independent researchers, stronger peer review, and a sharper focus on deliverable, scientifically robust solutions that could be rapidly adopted