Research England Signals New Era of University Investment Focused on Local Growth

Key Points

• Research England executive chair Jessica Corner has outlined a potential new era of university funding that places greater emphasis on institutions’ contributions to local economies.
• Corner described the emerging approach as “universities and anchoring value”, suggesting that funding decisions could increasingly recognise the economic benefits universities generate and retain within their regions.
• Research England’s reviews of Strategic Institutional Research Funding (SIRF) and Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF) could help shape future funding allocation and the recognition of regional impact.
• The government is pursuing a more place-based approach to innovation investment, with Prime Minister Andy Burnham outlining plans to devolve more funding to local leaders.
• Corner said Research England’s spending across the UK was now broadly balanced, with approximately half allocated to the greater south-east and half to other regions.
• New guidance for the next Research Excellence Framework (REF) is expected in November 2026, with proposed adjustments intended to give greater recognition to local impact.
• UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) said removing the two-star quality threshold for research underpinning impact case studies should help recognise a wider range of research and its effects.
• UKRI also expects to reform the formula used to distribute quality-related research funding by 2030, with the aim of encouraging greater specialisation and collaboration.

The report begins with the central funding development, followed by the policy reviews, regional investment context, proposed REF changes and potential implications for universities and local economies.

Britain Post News (BPN) October 12, 2026 – Research England is preparing for a potential new phase of university investment that places greater emphasis on the economic value institutions create in their surrounding regions. Executive chair Jessica Corner said future funding discussions would increasingly consider how universities contribute to local economies, alongside their established responsibilities for research and teaching. Her comments come as reviews of institutional research funding and knowledge-exchange allocations continue, while the government pursues a more geographically focused approach to innovation spending. New guidance for the next Research Excellence Framework is expected in November 2026, with proposed adjustments intended to strengthen recognition of local research impact.

Why Is Research England Considering a New Approach to University Funding?

Research England is considering how its funding arrangements can better recognise the wider economic contributions of universities, according to the report published by Research Professional News. The organisation’s executive chair, Jessica Corner, said the next phase of investment could place greater emphasis on the value universities generate within their regions.

Corner made the comments during a discussion organised by the Foundation for Science and Technology on the devolution of science and innovation spending. The event focused on the relationship between research investment, local decision-making and the economic benefits that universities can deliver.

Corner said universities had spent 25 years developing responsibilities beyond their traditional roles in research and teaching through Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF).

“We’ve been investing in universities to change their way of working for 25 years with Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF), giving them another role beyond research and teaching,” she said.

She explained that this funding had helped establish the infrastructure and learning needed to support knowledge exchange, with institutions assessed and rewarded for their performance.

Corner said she was beginning to discuss what she called the “next era”, describing the concept as “universities and anchoring value”.

The proposed direction would consider not only universities’ activities but also the value they create for their surrounding economies and the benefits that return to those communities.

Corner suggested that indicators could be developed to measure this contribution. However, the supplied report does not specify what those indicators would measure, how they would be weighted or whether they would directly determine future funding allocations.

The comments therefore signal a developing policy direction rather than a fully defined replacement for existing university funding arrangements.

How Could the SIRF and HEIF Reviews Influence Future Funding?

Research England is expected to publish the outcomes of reviews examining the allocation of Strategic Institutional Research Funding (SIRF) and Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF).

A written parliamentary question dated 2 September 2026, available through the UK Parliament’s questions and statements service, concerns the publication of the review outcomes. The underlying issue is how Research England allocates funding for institutional research and knowledge exchange.

The SIRF review examines the approach to formula-based research funding, including quality-related research funding. Such arrangements are important because the method used to distribute public research money can influence the resources available to universities and their ability to sustain research activity.

The HEIF review, meanwhile, concerns funding allocated to support knowledge exchange. This covers the relationship between universities and organisations outside academia, including the ways knowledge, research and expertise can be applied beyond university settings.

The two reviews could help determine how regional and local contributions are recognised and supported in future funding decisions.

Their importance extends beyond the technical details of funding formulas. If economic and regional contributions receive greater recognition, universities may have stronger incentives to demonstrate how their research and expertise benefit the communities and industries around them.

However, the precise consequences will depend on the review findings and any subsequent policy decisions. The available report does not establish that either review will automatically introduce a new regional funding formula or guarantee additional money to particular institutions.

The reviews instead provide an opportunity to examine whether existing arrangements adequately reflect the different roles universities play in their local economies.

What Does a More Place-Based Approach Mean for UK Innovation Funding?

The discussion about university funding is taking place alongside a wider political push to connect research and innovation spending more closely with regional development.

According to the supplied Research Professional News report, Prime Minister Andy Burnham outlined plans on Friday to devolve more innovation funding to local leaders. He also said UK Research and Innovation, the organisation under which Research England operates, would adopt “a more place-based approach”.

The plans reflect a policy direction in which local decision-makers would have a greater role in determining how innovation investment supports their areas.

A place-based approach generally places greater emphasis on the economic conditions, research strengths, industrial needs and development opportunities of individual locations. Applied to university funding, this could mean considering how institutions contribute to regional priorities rather than assessing their value solely through measures that apply uniformly across the sector.

For example, a university’s economic contribution may be closely connected to the research needs of industries operating in its area, its relationships with local employers or its ability to transfer knowledge to businesses and public services. These are illustrative possibilities, not confirmed elements of a new Research England funding framework.

The report does not provide the full operational details of Burnham’s plans, including the precise amounts to be devolved, the allocation mechanisms or the responsibilities that would transfer to local leaders.

Nevertheless, the political emphasis on regional decision-making provides important context for Corner’s comments. Greater coordination between universities, local authorities, businesses and research funders could become an increasingly important feature of future innovation policy.

For universities, the challenge will be to demonstrate how their research and knowledge-exchange activities connect with local economic priorities while maintaining their wider academic responsibilities.

How Has Research England Changed the Regional Distribution of Its Spending?

Corner also reflected on the progress Research England has made in considering the geographical distribution of its funding.

She said the organisation had improved the way it measured spending distribution and had worked harder to make funding decisions sensitive to regional circumstances.

“That work has paid off,” Corner said. “Broadly, our spend across the UK is balanced now—50/50 between the greater south-east…and other regions; for example, the north and also the south-west.”

The figures indicate that Research England’s spending is now broadly divided equally between the greater south-east and other UK regions, according to Corner’s account.

This represents an important part of the discussion about geographical fairness in research investment. Funding distribution has implications for the ability of universities in different parts of the country to develop research capacity, establish partnerships and contribute to local economic activity.

However, a broadly balanced geographical distribution does not necessarily mean that individual universities receive equal amounts or face identical funding conditions. Research institutions differ in their scale, research activity, specialisms and funding requirements.

Nor does the reported 50/50 split establish how much economic value is generated in each region. The geographical distribution of expenditure and the economic benefits arising from that expenditure are related but distinct questions.

Corner’s comments suggest that Research England considers its work on geographical spending distribution to have made progress. Her discussion of a new era of university investment indicates that the next challenge may involve assessing the outcomes and wider value of that spending, rather than concentrating exclusively on where funding is allocated.

If the proposed approach develops, universities could face greater expectations to demonstrate how research investment supports local businesses, skills, innovation and economic development. The report does not yet confirm whether these factors will become formal requirements or how they would be measured.

What Changes Are Expected in the Next Research Excellence Framework?

Corner also discussed the forthcoming guidance for the next Research Excellence Framework, which is expected to be released in November 2026.

The REF is a national assessment framework used to evaluate research in UK higher education institutions. Its outcomes have an important relationship with the distribution of public research funding, including quality-related research funding.

According to Research Professional News, Corner indicated that the forthcoming guidance would include adjustments intended to address concerns about the recognition of local research impact.

“Certainly around the impact agenda, there are some tweaks that are trying to address the localism that was felt to be underpowered or undervalued, and I hope the panels will do a bit more on that,” she said.

Her remarks suggest that the next REF guidance is expected to make some changes to how research impact is assessed, particularly where benefits are concentrated at a local or regional level.

Research impact can extend beyond academic publications and citations. It can include changes in business practices, public services, professional methods or other activities arising from research.

The concern identified in Corner’s comments is that locally significant outcomes may not always receive sufficient recognition within assessment arrangements designed to evaluate research across a diverse national university sector.

The forthcoming guidance could therefore influence how assessment panels consider evidence of impact. However, the supplied report does not detail every proposed adjustment or establish how much weight local impact will receive in the final assessment process.

Universities will need to examine the published guidance when it becomes available to determine how it affects their preparations, impact case studies and evidence-gathering activities.

Why Is the Removal of the Two-Star Impact Threshold Significant?

UK Research and Innovation provided further information to Research Professional News about the proposed changes to the REF assessment arrangements.

UKRI said removing the two-star quality threshold for research underpinning impact case studies should help the framework recognise the diversity of research and its impact across the higher education sector, including at a local level.

The change concerns the relationship between the assessed quality of underlying research and the impact claimed by an institution.

Under a system that requires research underpinning an impact case study to meet a minimum quality threshold, some cases could be excluded from recognition if the supporting research does not reach the required standard, even where the institution identifies a relevant impact.

Removing the two-star threshold is intended to broaden the range of research that can underpin impact case studies. According to UKRI’s explanation, this should improve recognition of the varied forms of research and impact produced across the sector.

The distinction is relevant because research excellence and the geographical reach of an impact are not necessarily the same thing. Some research may have consequences for a particular community, business sector or public service without producing the same type or scale of influence as research with a wider national or international reach.

A more flexible approach could allow assessment panels to consider a broader range of evidence about the effects of research.

However, removing the threshold does not, by itself, establish that every impact case study will receive equal recognition or that local impact will automatically attract additional funding. The ultimate effect will depend on the complete REF guidance, assessment criteria and how panels apply them.

The November guidance should provide universities with further information about the practical implications of these adjustments.

How Could Research Funding Formula Reform Affect Universities by 2030?

The planned changes to the REF form part of a wider programme of reform to research funding.

Earlier in 2026, UKRI announced that it expected to reform Research England’s formula for distributing quality-related research funding through the REF by 2030.

According to the announcement referenced by Research Professional News, the reform is intended to encourage greater specialisation and collaboration.

Formula-based funding arrangements influence how resources are distributed among institutions. Changes to those formulas can therefore affect university planning, research priorities and decisions about partnerships.

Greater specialisation could involve institutions developing particular areas of research strength, while collaboration could encourage universities to work together where combined expertise or shared infrastructure offers advantages.

These are potential implications of the stated objectives rather than confirmed details of the future formula. The supplied report does not specify the final calculation method, the precise weighting of research factors or the amount of funding that would move between institutions.

The planned reform also needs to be distinguished from the separate reviews of SIRF and HEIF. Although these developments are connected through Research England’s wider funding responsibilities, they address different aspects of institutional research funding and knowledge exchange.

The timetable extending to 2030 suggests that the quality-related funding formula will not be transformed immediately. Universities will need to monitor the policy process and assess how any confirmed changes interact with the next REF and other funding decisions.

For institutions, preparation may involve reviewing research strategies, evaluating opportunities for collaboration and ensuring that evidence of research quality and impact is recorded effectively. The exact actions required will depend on the eventual rules.

What Do These Developments Mean for Universities and Regional Economies?

Taken together, Corner’s comments, the ongoing funding reviews, the planned REF guidance and the proposed formula reform point towards a broader discussion about how public investment in universities should be assessed.

The central issue is whether funding arrangements should place greater emphasis on the relationship between research activity and the places where universities operate.

For university leaders, this could increase the importance of demonstrating connections with local economic priorities. Evidence of collaboration with businesses, knowledge exchange and contributions to regional development may become more prominent in institutional planning if the emerging policy direction is reflected in formal funding rules.

For regional businesses, stronger links with universities could create opportunities to access research expertise, develop partnerships and explore practical applications of academic work. The extent of any benefits would depend on the institutions involved, the needs of local industries and the funding arrangements eventually adopted.

Local authorities and regional leaders could also have a more prominent role if the government’s proposed devolution of innovation spending proceeds. They may be better positioned to identify local priorities, although the practical distribution of responsibilities and funding has not been fully specified in the supplied report.

For researchers, the proposed REF adjustments could affect how institutions collect and present evidence of impact. Researchers whose work benefits specific communities or industries may be particularly interested in how the November guidance treats local outcomes.

The changes could also create challenges. Universities would need to understand any new assessment requirements, avoid duplicating reporting processes and balance local priorities with broader research responsibilities.

At this stage, the available evidence supports the conclusion that policy discussions are moving towards stronger recognition of regional contributions. It does not establish that a complete new funding system has been approved or that particular universities or regions will receive additional resources.

Background: What Are HEIF, SIRF and the Research Excellence Framework?

Research England is part of UK Research and Innovation, which oversees public research and innovation funding across the UK. Its responsibilities include supporting research in higher education institutions and funding arrangements connected to research quality and knowledge exchange.

Higher Education Innovation Funding supports knowledge exchange between universities and organisations outside academia. It has helped universities develop activities and infrastructure that extend their work beyond research and teaching.

Strategic Institutional Research Funding is the subject of a separate review examining the approach to institutional research funding, including formula-based allocations and quality-related research funding.

The Research Excellence Framework assesses research in UK higher education institutions. Its outcomes are connected to the allocation of quality-related research funding, making changes to its assessment guidance relevant to universities’ research strategies.

The current developments sit within a wider debate about the geographical distribution of research investment and the role universities can play in economic development.

Corner’s comments indicate that Research England is considering how future arrangements might better reflect the value universities generate in their surrounding economies. The SIRF and HEIF reviews, the expected November REF guidance and UKRI’s planned funding formula reform provide separate but related opportunities to consider that objective.

The precise policy outcomes will depend on the findings of the reviews, the final assessment guidance and subsequent funding decisions.

Prediction: How Could the Changes Affect Universities, Researchers and Local Businesses?

For UK universities, the most immediate development to watch is the publication of the next REF guidance in November 2026. Its treatment of impact case studies and locally focused research could influence how institutions prepare evidence for assessment and organise their research impact activities.

In the medium term, the outcomes of the SIRF and HEIF reviews could provide greater clarity about whether funding allocation arrangements will change to reflect universities’ regional contributions. Any effects on individual institutions will depend on the decisions taken after those reviews.

For researchers, a broader approach to impact assessment could create opportunities for different types of research to be recognised, particularly where benefits are concentrated in particular communities or industries. The actual effect will depend on the final criteria and how assessment panels apply them.

For businesses, stronger emphasis on university contributions to local economies could encourage closer engagement with academic institutions if the policy direction translates into practical support for partnerships and knowledge exchange. However, additional business opportunities or funding cannot yet be guaranteed.

Regional leaders may also have a greater role in shaping innovation priorities if the government’s plans to devolve funding are implemented. The extent of their influence will depend on the arrangements established between central government, UKRI and local decision-makers.

By 2030, the planned reform of the quality-related research funding formula could further influence how universities approach specialisation and collaboration. Institutions will need to respond to confirmed policy changes rather than assume that the proposed objectives will automatically determine future allocations.