CaSE Public Attitudes to R&D and Researcher Immigration 2025

There is substantial evidence on the benefits of attracting international researchers to the UK’s R&D sector, but the messaging used by the sector has struggled to cut through in the wider public debate around immigration.

CaSE commissioned The Social Agency and Icaro to develop and test pro-researcher immigration communications that are more emotionally resonant with the public – especially those with stronger anti-immigration views, to produce a Guide for Engaging the Public with Researcher Immigration. This guide was informed by qualitative and quantitative research, the results of which are described below.

This work is part of CaSE’s wider programme of work focused on immigration for R&D, which you can read about here.

Research stages

Qualitative research

Key findings from qualitative research

1. Communications should be upfront about immigration.

• Some communications framed immigration as a secondary part of the solution to a broader set of public concerns.
• Participants saw this as “patronising” and felt like they were being tricked. Others felt that by not mentioning immigration until the end, the message and purpose was diluted and therefore confusing.
• Participants emphasised their desire for communications to feel honest given the level of polarisation around the issue of immigration, and their inherent distrust in the establishment.

2. Distinguish between skilled immigration and other types of immigration.

• The media often frames anti-immigration sentiment around narratives of asylum seekers and small boats. The literature review also suggested people are more receptive to the idea of skilled migration.
• It is important to make this distinction when communicating about immigration in such a direct and upfront manner. This could help to remove the polarising effects of some of the broader debate.
• For example, some participants found the use of the “#SmartImmigration” hashtag to be compelling and representative of the type of skilled immigration they favoured.

3. Demonstrate that this immigration will benefit their local area.

• Participants’ experiences of immigration in their local communities does not involve skilled migrants. It involves vulnerable people they perceive as “beggars” and “criminals”, who they ultimately see as extractive to Britain.
• In this context, participants struggled to see how skilled migrants would be visible to them or benefit their communities.
• Therefore, communications which are locally framed, rather than nationally, might resonate with people more.
• CaSE’s wider work has explored how to connect with the public on a local level.

4. Don’t frame Britain (or the R&D sector) as reliant on immigration.

• Participants rejected communications that suggested Britain is incapable of solving its own problems and dependent on immigrants.
• They wanted more focus on investment in homegrown talent, which could then be supplemented by global talent.
• Some participants wanted the communications to explicitly address how skilled immigrants could help British-born workers, for example, by training the next generation. That way, participants could understand how researcher immigration might have a tangible, positive impact on their children’s lives.

Method and sample approach

The qualitative testing drew on a mixed sample size of 16 people. Prior research indicated that it was important to test the messages across age, gender, and anti-immigration sentiment groupings. The level of anti-immigration sentiment was determined via five screening questions. ​Participants were recruited in friendship pairs to allow them to feel more comfortable expressing their opinions. ​Due to the sample size, not all combinations were tested, with previous evidence used to inform those chosen.

For qualitative testing, three executions were drafted per territory. ​The executions were mocked up to be:​

• Static digital communications​
• Static out of home communications ​
• Video communications ​
• Audio communications ​

Each group was shown three communications examples from two of the three territories. Participants were asked to give their perspectives on the extent to which each communication performed against the following criteria: ​

• Understanding of main message​
• Relevance ​
• Emotion and tone ​
• Appeal ​
• Cut through ​
• Impact

Territory 1: Bright ideas are everywhere, let’s get them on our side​

The focus of this territory was on national and local pride, spirit of optimism, bringing bright ideas to Britain. The following executions were used:

Results

Headline: These executions used team sport and football analogies to convey the need to recruit the best ‘players’ to come to Britain.

Comprehension: Most participants understood these communications were about bringing in ideas from everywhere, collaboration, and building a great team of researchers. It used sport and football analogies to evoke feelings of pride for diverse thinking and demonstrate that international researchers can support homegrown talent. These analogies were universally understood but were more appealing to those that were football and sport fans.

Executions: The football analogy used in the TV advert and social media post resonated with football fans to a greater extent as they were better placed to draw useful parallels when thinking about R&D. Others found these analogies off-putting and felt it didn’t match the seriousness of the topic of immigration.

Key takeaway: Territory 1

Execute the message in a way that will appeal to everyone and not those with select interests. Steer away from the football metaphor and dial up ideas of collaboration and teamwork through an analogy which is universally appreciated.

“What about the hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people in the UK that have no interest in football? The advert’s just pushed them completely to the side. They walked out of the room in the first two seconds.”

Male, 18-44, moderate anti-immigration sentiment

Territory 2: Britain is broken. Let’s take back control of our future and fix it.​

The focus of this territory was on nostalgia for the past, addressing the dissatisfaction, disillusionment, and anger with the state of the UK.

Results

Headline: This territory used themes of nostalgia and discontent with the state of Britain to connect with how the public perceive public life. It presented R&D as part of the solution to Britain’s problems and positioned researcher immigration as part of the solution.

Comprehension: Participants recognised that the communications in this territory were about renewing past triumphs of British innovation in the modern day to fix a ‘Broken Britain’. While participants understood that attracting global talent is important, they felt this should not be at the expense of investing in homegrown talent.

Executions: Participants felt that the message about immigration was “slipped in” at the end of executions two and three, which felt “snidey” and deceitful. Two examples used the phrase “reignite the white heat” (referencing Harold Wilson’s 1963 speech on technology) which two groups misinterpreted as referencing skin colour, and felt the phrase had “white supremacy” undertones. One of the executions used the hashtag #smartimmigration, which participants felt reflected their preference for skilled migration as opposed to illegal migration and those seeking asylum.

Key takeaway for Territory 2

Ensure the message taps into feelings and problems that people can relate to. Be upfront and honest about intention of promoting immigration. It is important to strike a balance between the idea that Britain should invest in homegrown talent and recruit the best from abroad.

“We see it all day… every day. You go down your local high street… anywhere in the country and you see that Britain’s broken.”

Male, 18-44, moderate anti-immigration sentiment

Territory 3: Britain is under threat – we need to be strong to keep us safe.​

The focus of this territory was fear and protectionism, a desire for strong leadership, and the need to fix Britain.

Results

Headline: This territory used a superhero analogy, with the characters helping to keep Britain safe from threats to our security and wellbeing. It presented immigrant researchers as heroic figures, ready to help Britain fight various problems

Comprehension: Participants interpreted the message as saying that Britain is reliant on immigrants and needs them to save us from various threats. Participants felt this to be too pessimistic and neglected their desire to invest in homegrown talent, and that Britain was unable to solve its own problems.

Executions: Participants disliked the executions as comics, and of immigrant researchers as superheroes. In each of the three executions, the images came across as patronising, childish, and memorable for the wrong reasons. The emphasis on Britain being under threat and in need of saving was not appreciated, damaging participants’ sense of national pride.

Key takeaway from Territory 3:

Make it clear that Britain wants immigrant researchers but is not completely reliant on them. Don’t play so heavily on feelings of threat or fear, and present ideas in a way which reflects their seriousness. Be careful not to undermine Britain’s pool of homegrown talent in which we should invest.

“[It says] we can’t do it ourselves. When Britain is threatened, we’ve been bloody useless and we have to bring in people to help. We can’t manage the situation ourselves… we haven’t got the skill. […] It’s quite damning, really, isn’t it?”

Female, 45+, moderate anti-immigration sentiment

Quantitative research

Key findings from quantitative research

Many of the messaging concepts show promise, but further optimisation is required to identify the most effective choices. However, it is possible to infer key principles regarding the elements and angles which make messages more effective with different audiences. The best performing messages:

• Pointed to specific R&D innovations rather than using nebulous phrases such as “fixing problems”, e.g. From antibiotics to the internet, global researchers helped Britain innovate
• Evoked a sense of optimism for the future, e.g. Attracting the world’s best researchers will help Britain build the industries of tomorrow.
• Pointed to Britain’s past achievements, e.g. Many inventions that improve your life were developed here in Britain by global teams.
• Highlighted the importance of home-grown talent, e.g. The best team to fix our country is made of the brightest British researchers and top global talent.
• Triggered loss aversion, e.g. Britain could miss out on big breakthroughs if we don’t bring in the best global researchers“.

Some statements were less effective, such as those presenting Britain as passive or weak.

• The statement “The best researchers in the world want to work with us to fix Britain” proved the least convincing, potentially due to it casting the country as weak, passive and reliant on help. Messages which mentioned ‘local scientists’ or ‘our town’ also performed less well, but this may be a result of the message design rather than the premise.

Vote intention and political outlook have a significant bearing on how statements are received.

• The language of “global” plays well with potential Conservative and Reform voters, e.g. “Many inventions that improve your life were developed here in Britain by global teams”. As does focusing on the homegrown talent.
• By contrast, mentioning ‘immigration’ is very well received by a centre-left audience, but less so with other voter groups.

Methods

The 18 statements were tested with a nationally representative sample of 2,079 UK adults. ​The survey was conducted online using Yonder Data Solutions proprietary market research panel. Quotas were seton region, age, gender, ethnicity and social economic grade to ensure the sample matched the profile of the UK population.​

The testing comprised of four questions.​

1. Selecting whether each statement is convincing or unconvincing​
2. Ranking the memorability of the statement (selecting the most/least memorable)
3. Ranking the overall sentiment towards the statements (selecting the most/least liked)​
4. Vote intention (to understand different reactions according to political outlook)​

The first question used Implicit Testing to test unconscious responses (including emotion) in addition to their explicit answer. For this question, the speed of response was collected as a way of understanding emotional certainty in respondents’ answers.

Interpreting the results

The statements are not intended to be ready for immediate use in campaigns, and further refinement would be required before use in a real-world setting. For the purposes of testing, statements were constrained within a range of 80-100 characters (and the analysis of the implicit testing adjusted for any minor deviations in length to ensure that longer statements – which could take longer to read – were not disadvantaged). The statements were presented as written copy with no supporting imagery, to help understand the effectiveness of the statements without the influence of visual images.

It is also important to note that the performance of any single statement in the quantitative testing process is not necessarily a reflection on the wider ‘fixing broken Britain’ territory itself. It may be that different statements under the territory could be effective, even if the example statement was not.

It is more instructive to look at the broader performance of similar groups of statements, rather than looking for a “winner” or “loser”. The principles of what groups of statements convey is a more in instructive output from this type of early quantitative testing.

Results

Explicit convincingness

Respondents were shown each of the 18 statements tested and, for each, were asked if they felt the statement was convincing or unconvincing.

More than 70% found 11 of the 18 messages convincing, with “From antibiotics to the internet, global researchers helped Britain innovate – let’s do it again” performing best, with 82% saying they found the message convincing. However, this was closely followed by a number of other statements, emphasising that there is a strong group of statements with potential.

At the other end of the scale, there are three statements that are notably less convincing than the others, with “The best researchers in the world want to work with us to fix Britain” performing worst (although this was still seen as convincing by 46% of respondents).

Exploring emotional resonance and implicit convincingness

A method called implicit testing was used to test unconscious responses (including emotion) in addition to respondents’ explicit answer. For the question about whether a statement was convincing or unconvincing, the speed of response was collected as a way of understanding emotional certainty in respondents’ answers.

This can be used to shift the ‘convincingness’ score of the statements; respondents’ quick responses suggest they are slightly more convincing than based solely on respondents’ explicit answers. Using this method, almost all of the statements’ scores were uprated.

The most convincing statement overall remains “From antibiotics to the internet, global researchers helped Britain innovate – let’s do it again”, but this did not see a shift in its score.

When assessed by respondents’ voting intention, there are clear differences in performance. All the statements land – to some degree – among those who currently intend to vote left or centre left (Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens). A majority of this group find each statement convincing. Many also perform strongly with those who plan to vote Conservative; a majority of this group finds all but one statement convincing.

In contrast, there is lower overall traction among those intending to vote Reform, and among those who say they would not vote are much less likely to find the statements convincing. The most popular statements among Reform voters, rated convincing by 71% each, are:

• Our local scientists deserve world-class teammates – let’s bring them in
• The best team to fix our country is made of the brightest British researchers and top global talent

The most divisive statement is when the term ‘immigrant’ is used: “Immigrants helped us make the greatest British scientific breakthroughs – let’s do it again”. This is positively received by the centre left group, but not by other voter groups. It was the least convincing among Conservatives (42%), those who would not vote (37%) and Reform voters (24%).

“The best researchers in the world want to work with us to fix Britain” also performed notably poorly compared with the other statements among the centre left/left group, being seen as convincing by just 51%,10 percentage points less than any other statement.

We can then compare how convincing a statement is with how long it took for respondents to process the message. Messages that take longer to process are less emotionally resonant. Taking this reaction time into account shows that some of the messages ranked as convincing messages may be less resonant with the public.

The chart below shows the performance of each message in terms of whether it is convincing (Y-axis), and the speed taken to make that decision (X-axis). The scores are indexed around 100 to produce four quadrants. Messages in the top right quadrant are the best performing (i.e. highly convincing and chosen rapidly).

There are 13 messages that fall into the top right quadrant, which indicates high potential. We see the message referencing “antibiotics to the internet” performing well, along with “Attracting the world’s best researchers will help Britain build the industries of tomorrow”. “Our local scientists deserve world-class teammates – let’s bring them in” is seen as convincing, but elicits a slower reaction time.

The message “Immigrants helped us make the greatest British scientific breakthroughs – let’s do it again” – which was ranked very low in terms of being convincing – was responded to very quickly. We also found this message to be divisive between different voter groups. One message was found in the less convincing and slower response quadrant, which refers to the best researchers in the world wanting to “work with us to fix Britain”.

Memorability of messages

Respondents were asked to select the five most and five least memorable messages. These results do not take into account speed of response.

The most memorable message was “From antibiotics to the internet, global researchers helped Britain innovate – let’s do it again”, selected by 30%. The least memorable was “Our town can solve big problems by bringing in the best minds in the world”, selected by 30%.

When assessed by voter group, we see that those who plan to vote Reform and those who would not vote are the least likely to find messages about researcher migration memorable, with 21% and 27%, respectively, saying they found no messages memorable.

However, those who would not vote were also the group most likely to select “none” when asked which messages they liked the most, with 33% selecting this option.

The least memorable messages were “Our town can solve big problems by bringing in the best minds in the world”, selected by 36% of Conservatives and 34% of Labour/Lib Dem/Greens, 27% of Reform voters and 22% of those who would not vote. The message “Immigrants helped us make the greatest British scientific breakthroughs – let’s do it again” was the least memorable among Reform voters, selected by 41%.

Likeability of messages

Finally, respondents were asked to select the five messages they liked most, and the five they disliked the most. Again, “From antibiotics to the internet, global researchers helped Britain innovate – let’s do it again” was the most popular message, selected by 23% as the most liked. This was closely followed by “Top global researchers are working with British experts to develop new treatments for the NHS”, selected by 20%.

The most disliked message was “Immigrants helped us make the greatest British scientific breakthroughs – let’s do it again”, selected by 27% as disliked. This was followed by “Our town can solve big problems by bringing in the best minds in the world”, selected by 20%.

When assessed by voter group, we see that the popularity of the most-liked messages is driven by Conservative and Labour/Lib Dem/Green voters. Reform voters and those who would not vote were most likely to select “none” when asked which messages they most liked (27% and 36%, respectively).

However, those who would not vote were also the group most likely to select “none” when asked which messages they disliked the most, with 48% selecting this option.

For the most disliked messages, the message that mentions immigrants at the start was the most-often selected by both Conservative voters (33%), Reform voters (48%) and those who would not vote (21%). Labour/Lib Dem/Greens were most likely to dislike the message “Our town can solve big problems by bringing in the best minds in the world”, being selected by 25% of this group.