At last week’s UK Innovation Districts Summit 2026 in Liverpool, a vital conversation took centre stage: ‘Public opinion on R&D and innovation: why it matters and what next.’ We sat down with David Marlow (Chief Executive, Third Life Economics) and Jane Robinson (Pro Vice-Chancellor, Business, Partnerships and Place, Newcastle University) to unpack a reality that every innovation district leader in the UK must now confront.
While our districts are engines of economic growth and scientific breakthroughs, a widening disconnect is forming right on our doorsteps. If we want our ecosystems to be sustainable, we have to change how we engage with, and deliver value to, our local communities.
Here are the key takeaways from the discussion and what they might mean for your leadership strategy.
1. Public Perception of ‘value’
The majority of people support the need for R&D funding. In particular, they support university medical research and understand its potential to save lives and improve health outcomes. The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) Public Attitudes Study found that 88% of people support the need for Government funding into R&D activity but actually only 18% of people state that they feel any benefits of this in their immediate area or for their family.
The takeaway for leaders: For too long, the “value” of an anchor institution has been abstract or inward-facing. If local people feel that the knowledge generated in our districts is detached from their daily lives or that the career pathways we create are out of reach, we risk losing our social license to operate. We must bridge this gap by really strengthening university-community links.
2. Putting “Place” and “People” First
How do we fix this? The duo discussed a strategic framework for innovation districts that shifts our focus from purely property-led development to human-centered placemaking, and referenced a recent report: Driving Inclusive Innovation.
True inclusive innovation isn’t a byproduct of growth; it must be intentionally designed. As leaders, our role is to connect the research strengths of our universities directly with the immediate opportunities and challenges within our local communities. There is also a direct call to focus on human-centered design in the development of districts both in physical estate and facilities access terms but also in the services and programmes that we run.
3. Measuring What Matters: Frameworks for Inclusive Metrics
You can’t manage what you don’t measure. The summit highlighted the urgent need to rethink the metrics we use to measure success for innovation districts and ensure they focus on outcomes and inclusive growth just as much as jobs and GVA. UK IDG has been working on this to co-design a Framework for Innovation District Metrics.
Stakeholders across districts need a standardised vocabulary and dataset to articulate their inclusive innovation ambitions. We need to move beyond traditional metrics like “square footage developed” or “venture capital raised” and start tracking indicators that prove local wealth building, community health improvements, and economic resilience at neighbourhood-level.
4. Creating Real Pathways: The “Building Blocks” Model
Inclusive innovation requires tangible programmes, not just policy papers. A standout example discussed was BUILDING BLOCKS. Newcastle Helix’s BUILDING BLOCKS work experience model is based around a ‘work placement safari’, where rather than relying on a one-week placement with a single employer students are exposed to a range of experiences involving real workplaces, real people and real skills.
This initiative is actively breaking down barriers, directly connecting young people with global industry partners and government stakeholders. By scaling projects like this, innovation districts can provide life-changing, practical exposure to young people who might otherwise feel completely alienated from the innovation economy – as this recent film about the Future of Work Experience explains.
5. Co-Design: Engaging Communities Early
Jane Robinson shared critical insights from Newcastle, emphasizing that community engagement cannot be an afterthought or a “tick-box” exercise at the end of a project.
Newcastle University’s approach relies heavily on involving local communities early in the design phase of innovation projects. When residents are treated as co-designers of the district’s priorities, the resulting innovations are more relevant, more trusted, and far more likely to deliver genuine local impact.
6. Navigating the Complexity of Diverse Regions
Finally, the panel tackled a systemic hurdle: the sheer difficulty of scaling university-driven innovations across vastly different political and regional landscapes in the UK. What works in a highly devolved combined authority might stall in a different regional context. Just as what works in an inner city district might be different from a semi-rural town.
To succeed, innovation district leaders must advocate for regional certainty and tailor their value proposition to the specific political and economic realities of their geography. Innovation must be made highly relevant to local political leaders and public priorities to secure long-term backing.
What Next for District Leaders?
As leaders, we must use our convening power to co-design our districts with the people who live, work and study in them. By adopting inclusive metrics, investing in early community engagement, and building concrete pathways for people to get real value from a district (like Building Blocks in Newcastle), we can shift the dial on public opinion.
What steps is your district taking to co-design with your local community? Let us know by joining the conversation on LinkedIn.