Infrastructure
57. The RAE stands accused of compounding the problem
of long-term under-investment in research infrastructure by encouraging
diversion of funds away from infrastructure to maintain ratings.
According to the Amicus-MSF trade union, "departments have
been under considerable pressure to use funds awarded as indirect
costs to increase research activity instead of maintaining infrastructure
and support services".[103]
Any university that made capital investment is unlikely to see
the results within the period of a single RAE. To do so would
risk dropping a grade with a subsequent loss of income. The DfES
acknowledged the need to "ensure that funding mechanisms
do not provide perverse incentives", pointing in particular
to the importance of encouraging institutions to invest in the
physical infrastructure.[104]
The introduction of JIF and now SRIF are welcome but are not enough.[105]
A recent report found that there is a backlog of investment in
universities' research infrastructure of around £2.7 billion.[106]
HEFCE should monitor levels of investment in infrastructure
carefully and if necessary introduce a recurrent funding stream.
Conclusion
58. The AUT's Natalie Fenton said in her evidence,
"It is impossible to overestimate the driving force, in terms
of the culture of a department, that the RAE has; so it focuses
completely a department's attention on a particular end sight,
because that is ... the only multiplier ... they have control
over".[107] In
contrast, Bahram Bekhradnia of HEFCE said "The RAE is a tool,
no more than that".[108]
It is a tool that we feel has had a profound impact on much of
universities' behaviour. In their evidence to us, HEFCE seemed
to believe that any side effects of the RAE were unfortunate and
somehow nothing to do with them. If HEFCE has a mechanism for
selective research funding then it must take responsibility for
any distortions it causes.
59. The RAE has undoubtedly brought benefits but
it has also caused collateral damage. It has damaged staff careers
and it has distracted universities from their teaching, community
and economic development roles. Higher education should encourage
excellence in all these areas, not just in research. Universities
should be assessed on a balanced score-card.
42 Eg Ev 72, para 5; Ev 89 Back
43
Ev 24, Ev 113 Back
44
Ev 34, para 90 Back
45
Ev 4, para 33 Back
46
Ev 3, para 28, footnote 7 Back
47
Ev 3, para 28; Qq 61-62 Back
48
Ev 24 Back
49
Ev 99, para 14 Back
50
Ev 66, para 5 Back
51
Ev 7, para 60 Back
52
Ev 66, para 4 Back
53
Ev 105 Back
54
Ev 24 Back
55
Ev 66, para 4 Back
56
Ev 108, para 7 Back
57
Ev 5, para 40 Back
58
Q 39 Back
59
Q 78 Back
60
Q 78 Back
61
Ev 96, para 2 Back
62
Ev 71, para 13 Back
63
Ev 123, para 6; Qq 57-59, 100-101 Back
64
Ev 128 Back
65
Ev 5, para 41-42; Ev 127, para 16 Back
66
Ev 114, para 6; Ev 77 Back
67
Ev 111, para 22 Back
68
Ev 25 Back
69
Q 87 Back
70
Q 75 Back
71
Ev 17, para 25 Back
72
Ev 4, para 33 Back
73
Ev 106-107 Back
74
Review of Research: report on consultation, HEFCE 01/17, 2001;
Ev 26 Back
75
Ev 27, para 1.6 Back
76
Ev 127, para 15 Back
77
Ev 78, paras 3-5 Back
78
Ev 15, para 12 Back
79
Ev 78, para 3 Back
80
Ev 129, annex F Back
81
Ev 11-14, annex D Back
82
Ev 64 Back
83
Ev 36 Back
84
Ev 118 Back
85
Q 68 Back
86
Ev 80, para 6 Back
87
Views expressed at a meeting attended by the Chairman at the
University of East Anglia. Back
88
HEFCE Report 02/15. Information on quality and standards in higher
education, March 2002 Back
89
Qq 186-187 Back
90
Ev 105 Back
91
Q 203 Back
92
Q 37 Back
93
Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education,
1997, Summary, para 52 Back
94
Q 104 Back
95
Ev 77, para 5; Ev 104 Back
96
Ev 94, para 24 Back
97
Ev 72, para 3 Back
98
Ev 121-123 Back
99
Q 52, Ev 92 Back
100
Ev 103, Ev 112, Ev 115-117 Back
101
HEFCE Research report 02/07 Back
102
Ev 68 Back
103
Ev 106 Back
104
Ev 49, para 17 Back
105
Ev 113 Back
106
Study of Science Research Infrastructure by JM Consulting Ltd,
2002 Back
107
Q 68 Back
108
Q 3 Back