4: Proposals

Arts and humanities led skills, disciplines and sectors contribute around 6% of gross value added with 1% of public funding. On the surface, that seems to suggest that we're incredibly successful, that we don't need much support. But if you look closely, you'll see gaps and barriers which mean that actually we're not as economically successful as we could be. So there is a responsibility as a public funder to design and support interventions that lift the blocks that de-risk innovation and that encourage or incentivise industry to invest in R&D and to take risks as well.

- Tao-Tao Chang, Associate Director for Programmes at Arts and Humanities Research Council

This final chapter addresses the challenges 𝖗 and opportunities raised in the first three chapters by putting forward proposals that primarily target government policymakers and public funding bodies. Their strategic interventions can have the highest impact on the development of art and advanced technologies (AxAT) as a recognised ecosystem and Creative R&D as its central value proposition 𝖛. At the same time, as the FAE briefings have demonstrated since 2020, setting precedents and developing new de facto frameworks through bottom-up coalitions 𝖊 is part and parcel of the AxAT DNA. Therefore, while the proposals in the first part of the chapter address critical gaps in the current policy landscape, responding to the barriers faced by AxAT practitioners and the organisations' ecosystems, the chapter concludes with an address to the Creative R&D ecosystem.

Some of the proposals dovetail with and build upon insights from several recent reports, from Creative UK, Arts Council England, the British Council, the Council for Science and Technology, Nesta, and Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre, as well as cultural policy recommendations relating to the need for new data practices.¹ Collectively, these reports highlight the need for more integrated approaches to supporting creative and technological innovation, the importance of measuring ecosystem-wide 𝖒 impacts, and the potential of artistic practice to contribute to broader 𝖒 innovation objectives.

FAE5 demonstrates that Creative R&D is inherent to the art and advanced technologies (AxAT) ecosystem, spanning basic and applied research, and experimental development. Creative R&D is neither confined to the creative industries nor to narrow forms of applied research that can lead to commercialisation through downstream technological applications. Creative R&D exists equally in deep tech as it does in the development of innovative presentation formats. Unlike traditional R&D models that separate technical development from cultural application, AxAT practices demonstrate that innovation emerges 𝖊 most effectively at the intersection of technical capability and cultural imagination. As the briefing shows, this positions Creative R&D not as a peripheral activity dependent on technological spillovers, but as a core driver of innovation that generates value 𝖛 across multiple domains simultaneously.

At present, the full spectrum of this activity is largely invisible to policy-makers. AxAT practices engaged in Creative R&D and the organisations that host this activity cut across cultural and technological domains, encompassing cultural organisations, technological communities, the tech sector, academia and civic actors with missions relating to technology and society. The misalignment between policy and reality results in systematic underinvestment in the infrastructural foundations that enable Creative R&D to flourish, while simultaneously obscuring its contributions to broader innovation objectives. A new policy framework, therefore, is required - one that recognises Creative R&D as a distinct category of innovation activity with its own operational requirements, success metrics, and strategic value 𝖛.

At the foundation, there is a need for a new vision that articulates the indispensability of technology to culture and culture to technology, emphasising that the macro challenges 𝖗 that we face today - spanning environmental degradation and catastrophes, to social stratification, the volatility of democratic systems, to geopolitical combustion and uncertainty - can only be addressed through integrated approaches that leverage both cultural insight and technological capability.

When the Treasury or the Department for Business and Trade talks about the growth of the creative industries, they need to be encouraged to see the whole arts and culture ecosystem.

- Thangam Debbonaire, Labour Member of the House of Lords

The current division between DCMS's cultural remit and DSIT's technology focus creates institutional blind spots that undermine the UK's capacity to leverage Creative R&D effectively. International precedents, for example, the EU's Creative Europe programme and Taiwan's Digital Ministry demonstrate how integrated 𝖎 governance structures can 𝖒 accelerate convergent innovation. Failure to acknowledge this interconnection puts the UK at risk of falling behind without corresponding institutional reform.

Such an entity would establish a cross-departmental structure jointly overseen by DCMS and DSIT, with a specific mandate to advance the innovation potential of Creative R&D and represent organisations and practitioners active across different fields. The body would operate with dedicated resources and decision-making authority over policies affecting the AxAT ecosystem rather than functioning as a mere coordination forum. Key responsibilities would include developing strategic frameworks for Creative R&D investment, facilitating cross-sector partnerships, and ensuring that emerging technologies are developed with cultural considerations embedded from the outset.

The structure would mirror successful cross-departmental models such as the Government Office for Science, but with specific expertise in the convergent domains of culture and technology. It would serve as the primary interface between government and the AxAT ecosystem, providing a single point of contact for organisations operating across traditional sector boundaries while ensuring policy coherence across departments.

The current DSIT definition of R&D explicitly excludes 'work in the arts, humanities and social sciences' from eligibility for R&D tax credits and other financial mechanisms, creating an artificial boundary that contradicts the operational realities of contemporary innovation. This exclusion is particularly problematic given that the OECD's Frascati Manual, the international standard for R&D statistics, explicitly includes research in the humanities and arts. As McDonald, Jordan, and Hitchen document in their analysis of R&D in the creative industries, and as is further expanded on by this briefing, this definitional limitation further obscures the substantial 'dark matter' of research and development activity within cultural sectors.²

The revised definition would recognise experimental practices in AxAT as legitimate forms of technological innovation. Implementation would require developing new assessment frameworks capable of evaluating Creative R&D proposals, drawing on international precedents and existing expertise within bodies such as the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). The expansion would be carefully calibrated to maintain rigorous standards while recognising the distinctive methodologies of Creative R&D. Broadening the R&D definition would unlock significant financial resources for Creative R&D, enabling organisations and practitioners to clearly identify Creative R&D as an integral part of their practice, scale their experimental activities and build more resilient operational models with appropriate IP frameworks, adding value to broader innovation ecosystems 𝖛.

Creative R&D could be a significant contributor to the UK's national missions. Beyond narrow and often naive techno-solutionism, we need approaches that consider implications for citizens and communities - from net zero targets to AI trust, integrated digital public services, and social prescribing. We need rigorous evidence and compelling narratives about Creative R&D that both satisfy traditional metrics and clearly articulate to society why this investment matters.

-Tom Crick, Chief Scientific Adviser, Department for Culture, Media and Sport

The invisibility of Creative R&D activity stems from a fundamental misalignment with current measurement frameworks. As the CICERONE project's comprehensive analysis shows, existing statistical taxonomies were 'primarily developed in the mid-20th century and were shaped by the structure of industries and occupations prevalent at that time', rendering them inadequate for measuring contemporary creative economies.³ The persistence of these outdated frameworks equally creates systemic blind spots that undermine evidence-based policymaking for Creative R&D.

I think more and more we'll have to think about that relationship between the quantitative and the qualitative, and the human-centred impact of innovation as well as the hard edge of innovation.

- Tonya Nelson, Executive Director, Enterprise & Innovation, Arts Council England

Bakhshi, Freeman, and Higgs' dynamic mapping research reveals how Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes fail to capture the network effects and cross-sector value creation 𝖛 that characterise creative industries.⁴ This measurement gap is particularly problematic for Creative R&D, which operates through distributed networks, temporary organisational hosting, and organisational forms that resist traditional classification. Creative UK's recent provocation paper emphasises the urgent need for measurement frameworks that can 'address the full scale of the sector's needs' through integrated approaches that capture ecosystem-wide effects.⁵

The proposal involves developing specialised economic tracking systems that move beyond siloed impact measurements to frameworks capable of capturing ecosystem-wide effects, 𝖒 including multipliers, spillover effects, positive externalities, and long-term value 𝖛 generation. This would build on innovative approaches such as those developed by The Data City, which uses machine learning to combine standard classifications with automated real-time data sources, offering relevant and accurate information.⁶

Ecosystem 𝖎 measurement models would provide policymakers with the evidence base necessary to make informed decisions about Creative R&D investment while demonstrating the sector's broader economic significance. Most importantly, it would make visible the substantial value that Creative R&D already generates 𝖛, providing the foundation for scaling successful models and attracting additional investment to the field.

To pursue investment that recognises creative businesses' potential value, we must de-risk through blended finance models. This approach is essential for both growth and R&D investment in such an IP-heavy sector.

- Amy Tarr, Head of Policy & Public Affairs at Creative UK

At present, direct public funding for Creative R&D is limited to business-focused projects, such as for creative industries' SMEs via Innovate UK, or as part of large academic research-led consortia via AHRC. A fund recently launched by UKRI - a Cross Research Council Responsive Mode Pilot Scheme - signals a promising development for organisations and practitioners engaged in different types of Creative R&D. With the aim 'to support emerging ideas from the research community that transcend 𝖊, combine or significantly span disciplines, to ensure all forms of interdisciplinary research have a home within UKRI', the funding scheme emphasises knowledge transfer and experimental interdisciplinary innovation.⁷

It is critical to develop governance and funding approaches that account for the need of risk-taking in Creative R&D. A portfolio approach - where resources are allocated across a diversified collection of investments - recognises that a small percentage of initiatives will deliver outsized returns that compensate for expected failures. This approach to innovation investment is fundamental to private R&D investment; however it remains largely absent from public research and culture funding frameworks, which typically favour project-by-project merit assessments with limited tolerance for failure.⁸ Approaches that account for value creation at the macro scale would provide an important support mechanism for AxAT practitioners and hosting public organisations that assume the risks of undertaking Creative R&D as part of exploratory early stage innovation. As Arts Council England's report produced by the Centre for Economic and Business Research (Cebr) has found: '[publicly] funded organisations often take on the risks of experimentation, trialling new technologies, business models and audience engagement [methods], and these innovations are frequently taken up more widely across the sector, supporting productivity-enhancing change'.⁹ It could also align research funding and investment with societal goals, measuring and directing public value creation at an ecosystemic scale.¹⁰

Supporting projects across their full development lifecycle and expanding access to organisations who don't traditionally access funds but can demonstrate contribution to Creative R&D, blended finance models that combine public and private capital could de-risk private investment while capturing the intellectual property value these projects generate. Unlike traditional venture capital approaches, these models would be designed to accommodate the distinctive risk profiles and value creation patterns of Creative R&D 𝖛, including longer development timelines and hybrid commercial/cultural outcomes. The blended approach would enable scaling of successful innovations while maintaining alignment with public benefit objectives.

Similarly, schemes for capital funding and common infrastructure projects would provide dedicated support for sustained infrastructure development, addressing the fundamental inefficiency of project-based funding for certain types of Creative R&D activity. This fragmented approach wastes resources by preventing continuity and forcing constant reinvestment in basic infrastructure and capabilities and constrains continuous exploitation of IP. Many development projects are also simply too large for single organisations, making shared approaches more economical and effective. For example, comprehensive AI data governance policies and bespoke technical infrastructure require expertise and resources that exceed individual organisational capacity.¹¹ Similarly, specialised facilities, fabrication equipment, performance spaces with advanced technical capabilities and computational resources can serve multiple organisations while achieving economies of scale impossible through individual investments.

This funding would support shared facilities, expertise networks, and infrastructure with collective ownership models, creating commons-based 𝖎 resources that provide essential foundations for Creative R&D activity while ensuring long-term sustainability through shared governance structures.

I believe that arts and humanities-led research can actually be a critical driver of technological innovation, not just a user or beneficiary of it. The biggest challenge at the moment is in enabling change in how arts and humanities researchers, and creative practitioners view their role. Why are theatres and stages not seen as labs and incubators, where new technologies and workflows are tested, improved and embedded, for example? The change can only come if the community understands the opportunities and clamours for change.

- Tao-Tao Chang, Associate Director for Programmes, Arts and Humanities Research Council

While policy reform is essential, the transformative 𝖒 potential of Creative R&D cannot wait for institutional change. As this briefing demonstrates, Creative R&D already operates across traditional sector boundaries 𝖎 - from artists engaged in pioneering AI research to cultural organisations hosting deep tech governance experimentation, from game studios advancing computational methods to civic technologists developing cultural applications. This distributed ecosystem has consistently demonstrated its capacity for bottom-up innovation 𝖊, creating operational frameworks 𝖊 and collaborative models that often prefigure broader 𝖒 systemic change.

The path forward requires the Creative R&D ecosystem to embrace its existing agency as a driver of change. The development of 21st century cultural infrastructure depends on recognising that Creative R&D is already reshaping how culture and technology intersect. The convergence of cultural insight and technological capability is happening now, across laboratories, studios, residencies, and hybrid organisations that resist traditional classification.

By documenting these practices, building networks that span institutional boundaries, and demonstrating the broader value they create 𝖛, the Creative R&D ecosystem can establish the foundations for policy recognition while advancing the work itself. The future of innovation depends as much on cultural imagination as technical capability - an opportunity that belongs to practitioners and organisations willing to claim it.