Research cannot be treated as a cost to manage

What research management professionals told us about building a more financially sustainable UK research system. 

Universities across the UK are facing difficult financial choices. Costs have risen, income is under pressure and institutions have less room to absorb the gap between what research costs and what funders pay. There is a real risk that research is seen mainly as a financial problem rather than an investment in the UK’s future. 

That matters beyond individual universities. If research capacity is eroded, the consequences will be felt nationally, weakening the UK’s ability to deliver priorities in AI and emerging technologies, defence and security, health and clinical research, productivity and public service improvement. Decisions made now about people, infrastructure and support could shape national research capability for years. 

What we heard 

ARMA established a Task & Finish Group on the Financial Sustainability of Research in 2024. With support from Research England, workshops in Leeds and London brought together more than 60 research management professionals.  

Their message was clear: financial pressures are already changing how research is planned, supported and delivered. 

Institutions are reviewing which opportunities they can afford to pursue, reducing discretionary funding and cutting professional services capacity. Pipeline development, mentoring, pump-priming and career support are particularly vulnerable because their value is realised over years, not within the next budget cycle. 

Participants were especially concerned about early- and mid-career researchers. Fewer development opportunities, heavier workloads and uncertain progression could weaken the talent pipeline on which future research excellence depends. 

This is happening alongside a changing funding landscape. Reforms across UKRI and Research England may create opportunities to improve how funding, assurance and assessment work, but it is too early to judge their institutional financial impact. What is clear is that these reforms are landing at a time when universities have much less capacity to absorb unrecovered research costs or additional operational burden. 

Research needs to be valued properly 

Language shapes this debate. Describing research as making a “loss” focuses attention on direct financial return while overlooking its wider value through new knowledge, innovation, public policy, institutional reputation and stronger teaching. 

Cost recovery cannot be ignored. Institutions need to understand the real cost of research and make deliberate choices about what they subsidise, while funders should be transparent about what their schemes cover. Sustainability requires honest conversations about both value and affordability. 

The hidden pressure on delivery 

Research finance and post-award support are central to successful delivery, yet their strategic importance is not always recognised. Meanwhile, expectations around reporting, compliance, assurance, impact and trusted research are becoming more complex. 

This creates a difficult mismatch: support capacity is shrinking while the work needed to manage awards well is increasing. Strong post-award support is not simply administration or compliance. It is integral to income recovery, financial control, risk management, avoiding disallowances and underspends, maintaining funder confidence and delivering awards successfully. 

What needs to change 

The recommendations point to practical action by both funders and institutions. 

Funders should: 

• provide clearer guidance on eligible costs and delivery expectations 

• be transparent about the proportion of full economic cost their schemes cover 

• recognise inflation and allow essential project management, technical, compliance and post-award costs 

• reduce unnecessary burden and involve research management and finance professionals when designing schemes. 

Institutions should: 

• strengthen and clearly explain costing, pricing and cost-recovery policies 

• make transparent, strategic decisions about when lower recovery is acceptable 

• focus workload and incentives on high-quality, deliverable research rather than bid volume 

• invest in research finance and post-award expertise while streamlining internal processes. 

A shared responsibility 

No single organisation can solve this. Funders, universities, sector bodies, researchers and research management professionals all influence how research is costed, selected, supported and delivered. 

We need a stronger shared understanding of research economics and financial sustainability, consistent messages about sustainable costing and stronger practical engagement. The issue is not simply knowledge of finance, but different terminology, incentives and perspectives across research offices, finance teams, academics and senior leadership. The people who make funding work day to day should be involved earlier and more routinely. 

ARMA’s role 

ARMA can bring the profession together, share institutional practice and speak collectively to funders and policymakers. The workshops also highlighted the need to bridge different professional perspectives, a stronger shared understanding of research economics and sustainability across academic, research management, finance and senior leadership communities, alongside stronger recognition for research finance specialists. 

ARMA will continue working with the British Universities Finance Directors Group (BUFDG) and other sector bodies, engage structurally with Research England and UKRI, feed practitioner evidence into emerging reforms, develop shared approaches and resources, and identify practical ways to reduce unnecessary burden across the funding lifecycle. 

This also links directly to the wider efficiency and reform agenda. Research management professionals can help shape how simplification, demand management, cost recovery and reduced bureaucracy work in practice, so that burden is genuinely removed rather than shifted to another point in the lifecycle. 

The case for action 

The financial pressures are immediate, but today’s choices will have long-term consequences. Cutting the people and infrastructure that underpin research may balance a budget now while reducing future capability, competitiveness and growth. 

Research must be affordable, well managed and accountable. It must also be recognised as a long-term national asset. Protecting research capacity is not only about balancing university budgets; it is about protecting the UK’s ability to innovate, respond to national challenges and deliver long-term public value. The challenge now is to move from recognising the problem to coordinated action across the system. 

The full findings from ARMA’s work can be found in our report: ARMA Financial Sustainability of Research Report  

 

With thanks to our Task and Finish Working Group for their insight and work in developing and delivering these workshops: 

• Bryony Butland – (Chair) Director of Research and Innovation, Queen Mary University London  

• Dr Rebecca Edwards – Interim Deputy Director of RKE, Research and Knowledge Exchange Directorate, SOAS University of London  

• Dr Camelia Dijkstra – Director, Research and Knowledge Exchange Services, Leeds Beckett University  

• Clare Edwards – Head of Research and Partnership Development, University of Leicester  

• Dr Angus Bell – Head of Research Development, Brunel University Charles Shannon – Head of Research and Innovation Operations, Loughborough University  

• Alex Morrison – Research Grants Programme Manager, Bournemouth University