Google DeepMind Research Ready – formative evaluation

• Recruitment and eligibility: Faster and clearer communications from the Academy on award notices, advertising earlier and more widely, removing the requirement to include an Academy Fellow in the selection process, collecting consistent data on eligibility (eg postcode) and providing feedback to applicants, would be welcomed.

Academy response: We have benefited from constructive feedback provided by host universities and placement participants, and we will continue to improve our communication on the programme. However, we reject the suggestion from recipients to remove the requirement for an Academy Fellow to participate in selecting students for the programme. Their participation is essential to the Academy’s support, providing benefits to the direct recipients of Research Ready from their expertise and experience, and also giving us confidence that decision-making is in line with our standards and expectations. Where participants have challenges identifying or scheduling a suitable Fellow, then we will support them. We are aiming to collect and assess programme-level data on eligibility, taking into account a number of parameters that indicate applicants’ level of socio-economic disadvantage. 

• Financial support and accommodation: Ensuring the stipend meets the minimum living wage, transparent and regular payment schedules, guidance on expenses (eg materials, travel) and consistent accommodation quality would support participation. 

Academy response: As placements are hosted by university delivery partners, the Academy has limited control over its quality but we will continue to address any complaints and concerns that arise, and share feedback with the hosts. The stipend for participants is set at the level of the living wage; for future cohorts we will make clearer the need to make payments in a timely way that avoids hardship among participants. 

• Community building: Would be strengthened by requiring shared workspaces or communal ‘hubs’, more social activities, and cross-university events. 

Academy response: We encourage all participants to join the Academy’s Awardee Excellence Community for continued connection and community-building opportunities following the placement. We recognise that participants who experienced ‘hubs’ for working and socialising together benefited from this, and we envisage that this should be part of the standard offer in future years of the programme. 

• Industry involvement: The Academy could require strong industry involvement in all university placements. Students would welcome this and more exposure to Google DeepMind.

Academy response: We agree that industry engagement as part of the placements can benefit participants, and we envisage that this should be part of the standard offer in future years of the programme. 

• Project choice and type: The Academy could consider requiring universities to offer project choice as standard, as this was linked to positive views and outcomes. Interdisciplinary projects can be encouraged but will depend on university capacity.

Academy response: We agree that project choice benefits participants, and we envisage that this should be part of the standard offer in future years of the programme. We will also encourage placement design with an interdisciplinary element. 

• PhD buddies: these were welcomed by interns and performed a variety of roles. Where PhD students are involved, formalising and remunerating their role is likely to increase impact.

Academy response: We will provide guidelines on the buddy role and remuneration in future years of the programme. We recognise that this has been a successful element of many of the placements and that there is an opportunity to share good practice among the host universities.