Currently the UKRN working definition of meta-research, also known as research on research, is the study of research methods, practices and environments with the aim of evaluating and improving research or research culture.

The Royal Society defines research culture as ‘the behaviors, values, expectations, attitudes and norms of our research communities’.

Achieve consensus on examples of good practice for the use of meta-research evidence in institutional decisions.

The study explored how meta-research has played an indirect role in shaped institutional strategies, often through advocates or external pressures like funding mandates, within the 14 institutions who participated. The ‘institutional meta-research’ that some universities are conducting to understand their own cultures was also highlighted.

It has also demonstrated that evidence-informed decision-making on issues affecting research culture is not yet embedded in institutions. Instead, research evidence has influenced activities in an ad hoc manner, often via specific individuals involved in discussions due to their roles. The actions taken by individual institutions to improve research culture remain largely uninformed by meta-research.

The study also found that the evaluation of culture-improvement initiatives has been minimal, which aligns to the findings of UKRI (2024) and Nair and Kita (2024). Participants identified resource limitations, the challenge of how to evaluate initiatives and the relative infancy of many of the initiatives as barriers to evaluation.

The factors which enable or hinder the use and impact of research evidence within such decision-making were also examined by the study. It found the engagement of decision-makers through consultation and co-creation at the beginning of the research process enhanced meta-research impact. Career stage, reputation, and personal and professional connections were also identified as factors that could influence a researchers’ ability to drive change. Barriers to the use and impact of research evidence in institutional decision-making included difficulties in producing evidence of sufficient quality to inform decisions, often linked to limited resources, and resistance to findings that reflected poorly on institutions or individuals.

Cross-institutional networks like N8, GW4, GuildHE, and ARMA (Association of Research Managers and Administrators) were highlighted by most interviewees as valuable for sharing knowledge and fostering collaboration. However competitive pressures between HEIs were noted to sometimes undermine these efforts.

It is suggested that the sector should strengthen collaboration through formal and informal networks, sharing research, successes, challenges and lessons learnt, to support and encourage an evidence-informed approach across the sector. Networks should promote knowledge exchange, expertise sharing, and cross-institutional approaches to initiatives. To maximise benefits, collaboration should span multiple networks rather than remaining siloed within individual networks.

The research highlights the need to rigorously evaluate research culture policies and initiatives. It encourages sector-wide collaboration and the sharing of findings to maximize the impact of meta-research on research culture to improve outcomes for universities and researchers alike.

It has demonstrated that evidence-informed decision-making around research culture is not widely embedded within HEIs, despite recognition that there is a body of work that could, in principle be drawn from. Therefore, the Wellcome-funded COMET study (led by University of Bristol / UK Reproducibility Network and University of Sussex / Science Policy Research Unit) aims to build on this work and improve the use of evidence in institutional decision-making affecting research cultures.

We gratefully acknowledge the funding and support of a consortium of UKRN institutions, who funded this project by pooling their ‘Enhancing Research Culture’ funds from Research England. The contributing institutions are: