APPENDIX 7
Memorandum submitted by the University
of Sunderland
In particular, this memorandum will address
the request for comment on "the current situation and what
changes are necessary to the DfES funding stream for research".
1. The University of Sunderland is a "new
University"—having achieved University status (along
with all other Polytechnics) in 1992—and has a high commitment
to research. The University achieved the best performance of any
"new University" in RAE2001 overall (ie taken across
all academic staff in the institution). Alongside this, the University
of Sunderland has the best record of any University in England
for widening participation. We would wish to stress that we see
these achievements in research and widening participation as interdependent,
not independent
2. The first point we would wish to make
is that research in Universities has three roles as follows (though
regrettably there is very much an overemphasis on the first in
the allocation of research funding through the Research Assessment
Exercise):
(a) to create new knowledge, new understanding
and new interpretation of existing data ie to push back the "frontiers
of knowledge".
(b) to provide an environment of academic
challenge in which the teaching of undergraduate & postgraduate
students and staff development can occur. It is widely accepted
that good teaching occurs where there is a strong research culture,
through interaction of students and other staff with academic
staff that are active in research in their discipline.
(c) to contribute through application of
the research base to national, regional and local economic and
community development.
In the current funding methodology, research
is viewed in an isolated manner and the need for integration with
university-level teaching and with development of a knowledge-based
economy is ignored. However, research output occurs through the
activities of people: the generation of graduates and future researchers
and application of research to the benefit of society (roles b
and c above) are essential functions of higher education and ones
which are underpinned by research.
3. The second point we would wish to make
extends this analysis to the issue of social inclusion and widening
participation. The need to increase the participation of individuals
from lower socio-economic groups in higher education is essential
for the national economic well-being—and is why a 50 per
cent participation target has been set. As indicated above, there
are few that would argue against the premise that good teaching
is informed by good research ie good teaching occurs in an environment
of academic challenge. The current funding paradigm for research
instead of investing in the research activity in universities
that are succeeding in addressing the widening participation agenda,
does exactly the opposite. Research funding is increasingly directed
away from such institutions, so perpetuating disadvantage. This
is a manifestation of the lack of consideration, in the funding
distribution, of the importance of research to good teaching.
4. The third point we would wish to make
relates to the contribution that higher education needs to make
to development of the economy. The future of the UK depends on
knowledge-based activity. University research is one major source
of knowledge and its exploitation, it is also an environment for
development of high level and research skills. The acceleration
in the need for creation, protection and exploitation of new knowledge,
for skilled people and the need for connection between universities
and their locality mean that the nation needs all universities
to be contributing as fully as possible to development of the
knowledge economy. This demands that there is a significant research
base in all universities. The current situation however is leading
in the opposite direction, through concentration of research funding
to a restricted range of universities: the reason again being
that research is considered in isolation of its importance to
the other two legs of university activity—namely teaching
and "reach-out".
5. The final point we would wish to make
is in relation to current lack of parity of treatment of individuals.
To explain the point, consider first a University rated as 3b
in a particular subject with say 12 staff submitted then, by the
RAE definition of a 3b rating, four to six of those staff are
working at "attainable levels of national excellence".
Nevertheless the institution secures little research funding in
relation to those staff as they are funded at a 3b funding level.
By comparison, consider a 5-rated department in the same subject
in a different university with say 10 staff then, by the RAE definition
of a 5 rating, between one and five of those staff will be at
"attainable levels of international excellence" and
four or eight at "attainable levels of national excellence",
all being funded at a 5-rating level. Hence those four to six
staff in the first institution rated as working at "national
levels of research excellence" are impoverished in research
funding compared to the four to eight staff in the second institution
though they are working at the same level of research excellence.
In fact, it is arguably more difficult for an individual to achieve
that level of research excellence in a 3b-rated "department"
than be one of those at national level of excellence in a 5-rated
department. Hence in the current situation, the funding regime
gives much less funding to the arguably more deserving. To give
a personal illustration of this point, at the University of Sunderland
we have had one of the acknowledged international leaders in heterocyclic
chemistry research in our School of Pharmacy and yet have never
received any hefce QR research funding to support his research
because he is in a Unit of Assessment rated two in RAE96 (this
has now risen to a rating of 3a in RAE2001). A system that allows
this is flawed.
6. What changes are necessary to the DfES
funding stream for research?
Most of the issues outlined in paragraphs 2
to 5 above could be resolved by instituting a basic level ("floor")
of research funding to Universities that have indicated commitment
to research development eg through improvement in successive RAEs
(ie improvement in average rating across all academic staff in
2001 in comparison to 1996). The RAE outcome could then be used,
as now, to determine a fractional quality element over and above
this floor funding, instead of determining distribution of the
total amount as it does now.
Professor JR Brown
Deputy Vice-Chancellor
University of Sunderland
15 January 2002
| 
