“SHAPE” Disciplines Gaining Ground in UK Research Strategy

Table of Contents

What are SHAPE disciplines

The acronym “SHAPE” stands for Social Sciences, Humanities and the Arts for People and the Economy/Environment. (The British Academy)
It was developed by the British Academy (with partners such as the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Academy of Social Sciences) to articulate the value of these disciplines, especially in an era heavily shaped by STEM‑centric narratives. (The British Academy)
Key messages: SHAPE disciplines help us understand people, culture, societies, human behaviour, economy, and are vital for tackling “grand challenges” (climate, inequality, digital society, health) and for bridging with STEM/technology research. (Shape Innovation)
The initiative emphasises that SHAPE is not in opposition to STEM — rather that SHAPE and STEM together (sometimes called “Connected Knowledge”) deliver more holistic innovation. (The British Academy)

Why SHAPE is gaining ground in UK research strategy

1. Recognition of human/social dimensions in major research missions

Many of the UK’s research‑policy “missions” (net‑zero, AI governance, health & ageing, future cities) require not only technological solutions but social, cultural, ethical, behavioural, organisational ones — areas where SHAPE excels. For example, at the University of Edinburgh SHAPE research is explicitly embedded in themes such as Data & Digital, Energy & Sustainability, Future Cities, Governance & Democracy. (cahss.ed.ac.uk)
The British Academy’s briefing “The Shape of Impact: key messages” (Jan 2024) shows SHAPE research not only contributes to cultural/heritage fields, but to business, employment, health, sustainability and infrastructure. (The British Academy)

2. Evidence of impact, skills and economic value

The SHAPE “Observatory” (British Academy) has gathered data showing: SHAPE subjects account for large shares of student enrolments; SHAPE graduates dominate many sectors; SHAPE research produces high‑impact case studies (for REF2021) across societal issues. (The British Academy)
For example: in higher education 2023/24, SHAPE disciplines represented ~58% of student enrolments in the UK. (The British Academy)
The impact‑report emphasises that SHAPE research is a “smart investment” — it delivers for people, places and economy. (The British Academy)

3. Shift in funding, policy and institutional‑strategy

The UK research‑innovation agenda increasingly frames “people, culture, behaviour, data, ethics, governance” as integral to technology and mission‑based science. This opens up SHAPE disciplines to more central roles — not just “nice to have” but core.
Universities and innovation centres are establishing dedicated SHAPE‑innovation units, accelerators, and translational support tailored for humanities/social sciences/arts (for example at King’s College London). (King’s College London)
The British Academy’s SHAPE programmes (e.g., “SHAPE Involve and Engage”) provide funding and visibility to public‑engagement, policy‑oriented SHAPE research. (The British Academy)

What this means (implications)

For research & innovation ecosystem

The rise of SHAPE means richer interdisciplinarity: projects that combine STEM/engineering with SHAPE disciplines are gaining traction (for example, data‑driven health + ethics + social policy). This leads to more holistic innovation.
It creates new career pathways and talent flows: SHAPE researchers are being seen as critical not just in academic domains, but in policy, industry, public sector, cultural institutions. The “Being a SHAPE Researcher” report shows mobility and porosity issues. (The British Academy)
It allows better articulation of value of humanities/social sciences in economic and societal terms — e.g., SHAPE research influencing policy, business, public services.
For universities and funders, aligning strategy to include SHAPE means broader funding bases, more public‑engagement, greater societal relevance, and potentially improved metrics of impact.

For industry & policy

SHAPE disciplines bring crucial capabilities: understanding user behaviour, regulation/ethics, cultural context, business models, social innovation — which are increasingly needed in digital, climate, health sectors. (See “Why SHAPE” description). (Shape Innovation)
Policymakers benefit from SHAPE research in designing governance frameworks, regulation of technology, public trust, cultural heritage, social infrastructure. The SHAPE Involve and Engage themes include digital societies, governance/trust. (The British Academy)
For economic strategy, recognising SHAPE means investing in creative industries, arts, heritage, social innovation — sectors with high growth potential and export possibilities.

For education & workforce

SHAPE implies that curricula should ensure that students acquire not only technical STEM skills but also social, creative, critical thinking, communication, ethics — enabling them to thrive in hybrid roles.
As the data show, SHAPE graduates are highly employable across sectors; investments in SHAPE subject provision support workforce resilience. (The British Academy)

Key challenges & things to watch

Visibility and funding parity: While SHAPE is gaining ground, the proportion of funding relative to STEM remains lower in many funding councils; the funding ecosystem still has structural biases. For example, UKRI budgets for AHRC/ESRC remain a small share of overall R&D funding. (The British Academy)
Translational pathways: SHAPE research impact sometimes takes different forms (policy change, cultural shift, communities) which are less easy to measure in traditional “commercialisation” or “spin‑out” terms. Funders and institutions need metrics that capture those value chains.
Interdisciplinarity complexity: Working across SHAPE + STEM requires institutional culture change, funding mechanisms, career incentives. Without that, the promise may be limited.
Subject provision & regional inequality: Data suggest that SHAPE disciplines face regional “cold spots” (e.g., fewer modern languages or humanities provision in some regions). This could hamper the broad benefits of SHAPE. (The British Academy)
Sustaining momentum: The rise of SHAPE requires sustained institutional support, rather than rhetorical inclusion. If policies shift back to purely STEM/technology focus, SHAPE could lose ground again.

Selected case studies

At the University of Edinburgh: SHAPE research centre is embedded within themes such as Governance & Democracy, Data & Digital, and explicitly states the collective “SHAPE” is part of the institution’s strategy. (cahss.ed.ac.uk)
At the University of Plymouth: Example of commercialisation in SHAPE disciplines — e.g., immersive storytelling for health & wellbeing, toolkits for gender representation in museums, showing how SHAPE can drive real world impact beyond standard humanities scholarship. (University of Plymouth)

Final summary

The increasing emphasis on SHAPE disciplines in UK research strategy reflects a shift: from seeing humanities and social sciences as ‘nice to have’ adjuncts, to recognising them as integral to innovation, societal challenge‑solving, policy, and economy. The acronym SHAPE helps bundle this strategic ambition and provides a clearer voice for these disciplines.

Here are two detailed case studies plus commentary on the growing role of the Social Sciences, Humanities and the Arts for People and the Economy (SHAPE) disciplines in UK research strategy.

Case Study 1: Knowledge‑Exchange in SHAPE (British Academy / KEF)

In June 2021, the British Academy published a report titled “Knowledge Exchange in the SHAPE disciplines” following the first outcomes of the UK’s Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF). (The British Academy)
The report collected multiple case studies across UK universities showing how SHAPE‑discipline researchers (social sciences, humanities, arts) engaged in knowledge exchange with businesses, public services and communities — e.g., a university linguistics lab working with an insurance company to improve readability of policy documents (linguistics + legal language + user welfare) which improved accessibility for tens of millions of consumers. (brownejacobson.com)
The report emphasised that SHAPE disciplines deliver social, economic, cultural benefits (regional economic growth; products/services; public‑policy influence) and argued they should have stronger recognition within university knowledge‑exchange metrics. (The British Academy)
Why this is important: It shows how SHAPE research is increasingly viewed not just as “pure humanities/social science” but as applied and instrumental in innovation, knowledge transfer and societal value. It supports the narrative that UK research strategy is elevating SHAPE alongside STEM.

Case Study 2: SHAPE Sustainability Impact Projects (Students + Universities)

The British Academy partnered with the student organisation Students Organising for Sustainability UK (SOS‑UK) to launch the SHAPE Sustainability Impact Projects (from 2020 onward) aimed at engaging students and academics in SHAPE disciplines to tackle environmental, social and economic sustainability challenges via “living‑lab” models in their own institutions/communities. (The British Academy)
Output examples include:
- A project at Bangor University to review and evolve how sustainability issues are taught across arts/humanities curricula. (The British Academy)
- A campaign at Manchester Metropolitan University where students from heritage/arts and social science backgrounds designed engagement strategies for their institution’s Sustainability Strategy for 2030. (The British Academy)
Why it matters: This case illustrates SHAPE’s relevance in domains often considered STEM‑only (e.g., climate, sustainability, net‑zero) and positions SHAPE disciplines as co‑creators of solutions, not just commentators. It shows the evolving role of SHAPE in UK research/innovation ecosystems.

Commentary: What the rise of SHAPE means

Broader recognition & repositioning: These case studies show that SHAPE disciplines are no longer peripheral — they are being repositioned as core to innovation, applied research, knowledge exchange and societal impact. The British Academy’s work (e.g., The Role of SHAPE in R&D and Innovation report) shows SHAPE is integral to innovation beyond pure STEM.
Interdisciplinary / “Connected Knowledge”: Many of the examples emphasise collaboration between SHAPE and STEM/engineering: e.g., humanities + behaviour sciences informing AI ethics, or arts + human‑geography informing climate engagement. This interdisciplinarity is increasingly embedded in UK research strategy.
Skills and workforce relevance: SHAPE research contributes to transferable skills (communication, critical thinking, creativity, cultural awareness) that are in demand across the economy. The British Academy’s “Skills at Work” report indicates SHAPE graduates perform strongly across sectors. (The British Academy)
Regional & social equity dimensions: The mapping of SHAPE subject provision (via the SHAPE Observatory) shows regional “cold‑spots” and highlights access issues. This matters for UK policy, especially for levelling up and ensuring broad access to SHAPE disciplines. (rgs.org)
Funding and policy shifts: The introduction of dedicated funding schemes (for example the British Academy’s Innovation Fellowships for SHAPE) and policy attention reflect an increased funding and strategic weight for SHAPE disciplines. (The British Academy)

Challenges & Things to Watch

Funding parity & perception: While SHAPE is gaining ground, historically the funding, prestige and institutional priority have been lower than many STEM areas. Continued structural investment is required.
Measuring and articulating impact: SHAPE disciplines often produce impact in ways less easily captured by traditional R&D metrics (patents, spin‑outs). Evaluating and capturing their value remains a challenge; e.g., impact on culture, public policy or community engagement.
Institutional culture and interdisciplinarity: Embedding SHAPE alongside STEM often requires institutional change (reward structures, collaboration incentives). Interdisciplinary work can suffer from funding/journal bias.
Supply and access: Some SHAPE subject areas (such as modern languages, some humanities) face decline in student numbers or provision; ensuring access and pipeline is important. The mapping of SHAPE provision reveals regional and subject‑specific challenges.
Translation to industry/innovation: While SHAPE’s role in knowledge exchange and societal impact is clear, turning SHAPE insights into commercial innovation remains a less mature pathway compared to engineering/tech. For UK research strategy, strengthening these links is key.

Final Take‑away

The rise of SHAPE disciplines in UK research strategy reflects a strategic broadening of what “research and innovation” means: not just STEM‑driven, but deeply connected to understanding human behaviour, society, culture, ethics and economy. The case studies above show SHAPE subjects doing applied work, engaging communities, influencing policy and facilitating innovation.

For researchers, universities and policymakers, the message is: SHAPE is not a side‑track — it is central to the challenges of our time (digital society, climate change, health, ethics, cultural change). Embedding SHAPE disciplines, ensuring their collaboration with STEM, and tracking their impact should be part of any modern research strategy.