Search

This working paper is intended to provide an overview of the key concepts associated with an entrepreneurial-university ecosystem. It also briefly discusses the entrepreneurial-university ecosystem around London (UK) and potential data sources to analyse such an ecosystem. The main research method used for the working paper is a simplified form of literature review aimed at quickly understanding the concepts at a high-level. The intended audience is those interested in: a) how universities can function entrepreneurially and b) getting an overview of the relevant literature.

What we eat has big implications for our health, our society and the environment. Unhealthy and nutritionally poor diets lead to ill health. The current food system and people's food practices have negative impacts on the environment, leading to greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation and biodiversity loss. Addressing these complex challenges requires changing how food is produced to ensure it is more sustainable, and, importantly, changing consumption to ensure it is healthier and more sustainable. Therefore, understanding food consumption trends, what drives them and how we can change consumption practices through interventions is crucial to inform policy. The aim of this study commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was to provide an overview of the existing evidence in four main areas: (1) the trends related to consumer food practices and attitudes, and to the changing food environment (e.g. out-of-home sector, online retail models) in the UK; (2) the drivers of consumption (e.g. the role of information or food system actors); (3) interventions that can influence food consumption practices; and (3) the differences between groups, or 'food publics', across the trends, drivers and interventions (i.e. segmentation). Researchers conducted a rapid evidence assessment, with a focus on identification of existing evidence and evidence gaps within high-quality, primarily academic literature from the last ten years. This report provides evidence around these questions and identifies areas of uncertainty where more evidence is required and, based on this, suggests a number of priority areas for further research and action by policymakers.

The Productivity Institute Programme (PIP) was established in 2019 by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) to address the UK's productivity challenges. ESRC commissioned RAND Europe and Frontier Economics to conduct an evaluation of the PIP to understand the extent to which it has fulfilled its objectives. This report represents the second phase of the evaluation, which is a formative evaluation focusing on initial process evaluation questions. The evaluation used a combination of document and data reviews, process mapping, key informant interviews and a workshop to cover six process evaluation questions, each with a high-level theme. The evaluation found that the PIP investments are coherent in their research agendas but need better coordination to ensure activities complement each other. The investments have put in place mechanisms to engage with stakeholder groups, but there is room for improvement in stakeholder management and coordination. The investments have adapted well to external shocks such as Covid-19, and there is clear use of monitoring and evaluation to drive improvement. However, there is an opportunity to strengthen the extent to which this feeds into learning at the investment level. The investments have a strong commitment to environmental, social and corporate governance, but there is an evidence gap for investment-level actions. Based on the formative evaluation activities, the report proposes several recommendations to ESRC, including regular meetings between the investments, better use of MEL processes to drive improvement and planning for the future of the programme beyond the current investments.

This report aims to inform the development of emergency readmissions for use as a potential indicator within the NHS Outcomes Framework. This report was prepared as part of the project 'An "On-call" Facility for Intermational Healthcare Comparisons' funded by the Department of Health in England through its Policy Research Programme (grant no. 0510002). This project comprises a programme of work on international healthcare comparisons that provides intelligence on new developments in other countires, involving a network of experts in a range of countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to inform health (care) policy development in England.

In 2012, RAND Europe and the Health Economics Research Group (Brunel University) were commissioned by the Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research and the Academy of Medical Science to conduct a study of the returns to the public/charitable investment in cancer-related research. This study built on previous work published in the 2008 'What's it worth?' report that estimated the economic returns to medical research in terms of spillover benefits and health gain. The 2008 study was extensively quoted and cited as a clear justification for the economic importance of medical research and appears to have played a role in achieving the protection of the medical science budget in the recent public expenditure cuts. This cancer study used a similar approach to that used in the previous study, but with some methodological developments. One of the methodological developments was the inclusion of case studies to examine the validity and variability of the estimates on elapsed time between funding and health gains, and the amount of health gains that can be attributed to UK research. This report provides the full text of the five case studies conducted as well as some discussion of observations emerging across the case study set.

In 2020, the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK and Wellcome, supported by RAND Europe, held discussions to examine the methods and data used to evidence progress in their research institutes. These discussions began with online meetings with a variety of funders and research institutes and concluded with a discussion forum to which research institute researchers, funding agency representatives, members of assessment panels and expert evaluators were invited to participate. The aim of these discussions was to help improve approaches, primarily used to make the case for the value of investment in these institutes. This working paper compiles the learning and recommendations that emerged from these discussions. The work was led by an organising committee with members from the Medical Research Council, CRUK, the Wellcome Trust, King's College London, the Francis Crick Institute, and RAND Europe who organised the discussion forum and reviewed drafts of this working paper.

The British Academy commissioned RAND Europe to conduct a research project on 'Understanding the social sciences, humanities and arts for people and the economy (SHAPE) Research and Development (R&D) in the UK and internationally'. The project was commissioned in response to concerns that current definitions of business R&D used in UK government datasets do not fully capture the extent and role of SHAPE R&D in the UK economy (Hasan Bakhshi, Breckon and Puttick 2021). A narrow definition of R&D, which does not fully recognise the contribution of the arts, humanities and social sciences, risks undervaluing the contribution of SHAPE R&D (Hasan Bakhshi, Breckon and Puttick 2021). This report aims to further investigate these issues and develop a fuller picture of the way SHAPE R&D is understood and captured in the UK economy and more widely. A mixed methods approach is taken through five work packages (WPs). Data collection methods include: a literature review, interviews, and data analysis. Evidence across these methodologies is triangulated to identify key messages pertaining to SHAPE R&D in the UK and internationally. For the international comparative analysis, five countries (Denmark, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland) are included. This report also includes analysis of key R&D industries in the UK: arts, entertainment and recreation; financial and insurance activities; information and communication; manufacturing; professional, scientific and technical activities; and wholesale and retail. These industries were chosen based on their high levels of R&D expenditure, contributions to the wider UK economy and overlap with SHAPE subjects and skills.

This report sets out the findings of a study funded by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to map the landscape of funding for research in work and health in the UK since 2015. This study responds to results of Health is everyone's business consultations by the DHSC and Department for Work and Pensions and aims to help all stakeholders better understand the existing work and health research funding landscape. Methodologically this study entailed desk research to identify and review publicly available databases and information requested from key funders, and semi-structured interviews with work and health researchers and funders. This report is likely of interest to research funders, researchers and policymakers as well as those working in research or healthcare provision related to work and health.