APPENDIX 8
Memorandum submitted by the Russell Group
of Universities
As context, we would wish to emphasise a number
of general points. Firstly, in common with most in Higher Education
and indeed beyond, we believe that the RAE has come to be seen
quite rightly as a sound and rigorous process which has played
an essential role in the recognition, support and promotion of
research excellence in Higher Education in the United Kingdom.
Secondly, the highest levels of international research excellence
(Grade 5 and Grade 5*) in science and technology (which throughout
this memorandum we take to include the relevant areas of medicine,
veterinary science and social sciences) form an essential platform
to ensure the long-term economic competitiveness of the UK, not
least in areas of high Government priority such as innovation,
exploitation and technology transfer. Thirdly, that the sustenance
of the highest quality research in science and technology requires
not only major capital support for research facilities and their
major renewal, as we have begun to see in the recent JIF and SRIF
exercises, but almost more importantly significant recurrent resources
to maintain research teams and research leadership and to support
the wider research infrastructure of research-intensive universities.
And finally, although we naturally in this memorandum concentrate
upon science and technology, we would also wish to emphasise the
major contribution which the highest quality of research in arts
and social sciences makes to the economy and society of our nation,
and that many of the comments we make below apply equally to these
areas.
With this as background, we would like to make
the following comments concerning the RAE process itself, with
particular reference to science and technology.
1. We believe that there can be sufficient
confidence in the outcome of the 2001 RAE exercise, and that those
departments or units assessed as Grade 5 and Grade 5* are genuinely
operating in the whole or for the most part at the highest levels
of international research quality.
2. The RAE has proved an effective mechanism
for ensuring selectivity and, therefore, efficiency in the allocation
of core funding for the purpose of sustaining high quality research
in science and technology. The benefit of such concentration of
resources is not simply a matter of economics, for it is only
in well supported centres of international research excellence
that the necessary research environment can be sustained to ensure
the attraction and proper training of the very best research talent
for the future, represented for example by our postgraduate and
our postdoctoral researchers. As we have said above, high quality
research is expensive. While some of these resources need to be
delivered by universities themselves (for example by working in
collaboration with industry and commerce), the maintenance of
the UK's leading-edge competitive advantage in science and technology
depends for the most significant part upon the resources being
provided by Government. The Transparency Review of Higher Education
funding has shown the extent of the present gap between the funding
of research and the full cost of that activity, and the recent
study conducted for the OST has quantified the remaining infrastructure
gap for research. These studies show clearly that the level of
research reported in the RAE is not sustainable in the medium
to long term without an appropriate increase in funds.
3. We believe that there is a productive
complementarity between the RAE and Research Council funding.
The RAE has served and continues to serve well the objective of
providing a degree of stability and relative predictability in
a flow of unearmarked research funding that can sustain the context
from which to seek earmarked funding. The recognition of departmental
achievement is a necessary framework for enhancing the productive
success for the targeting of research council funding on specific
projects.
4. We believe that the RAE has been successful
in generating increased levels of high quality research activity
in science and technology. Over time, it has made universities
pay more explicit attention to research strategies, research management
and research performance. This has been accompanied by some identifiable
weaknesses. The RAE has a tendency to reward relatively short-term
research and may have brought universities to incentivise production
by certain deadlines. Although we do not believe that there has
been a crude volume versus quality effect, it is worth enquiring
whether the nature of science and technology research has been
influenced by the existence of the RAE.
5. For all these reasons we believe that
the RAE process is important and must continue in some appropriate
form into the future. While the costs of the RAE to universities
and to HEFCE are not insignificant, they are relatively modest
when compared, for example, with the project-based peer review
of research operated by the Research Councils. Nevertheless, we
believe that there should of course be renewed efforts to reduce
the costs of the assessment itself through a procedure that would
maintain the demonstrable advantages of the exercise in a manner
less demanding of time and resource.
6. While we recognise that the RAE has a
general utility in guiding the allocation of research funds across
Higher Education, we would urge that the more significant prize
for the UK more generally is its role in identifying areas of
real international excellence. In this respect, we feel that more
attention might be paid to international benchmarking than can
presently be accommodated, including greater international expert
representation on assessment panels.
7. In the context of the present situation,
it is important to emphasize that the benefits, which we have
identified above, will disappear comprehensively if there is an
unwillingness to provide the resources necessary to sustain the
centres of excellence identified by the RAE. The apparent constraints
upon HEFCE preventing it from adequately and appropriately funding
the outcome of the RAE 2001, especially with regard to Grade 5
and Grade 5*, is in the short term of significant concern to us
in our endeavours to retain and motivate our best talent, and
if perpetuated in the longer term would become a major threat
to continued excellence. Nowhere are these dangers more real than
in the area of science and technology, where universities are
such key drivers in so many of the Government's priority areas
of innovation, exploitation and competitiveness.
8. We would urge the Select Committee, therefore,
to press for the immediate full and proper funding of the RAE
outcome, but especially so for those areas graded 5 and 5* which,
have been confirmed by due process, including international ratification,
as operating at the highest levels of international research excellence.
Finally, I should explain that the Russell Group
is a voluntary association of the Vice-Chancellors/Principals
of the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Cambridge,
Edinburgh, Glasgow, Imperial, Kings College London, Leeds, Liverpool,
LSE, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Oxford, Sheffield, Southampton,
UCL and Warwick, who come together from time to time to discuss
issues of common interest and concern, particularly but not exclusively
related to research. The Select Committee might wish to note that
in the 2001 RAE, 78 per cent of the staff in 5* departments, and
57 per cent of the staff in Grade 5 departments are located within
Russell Group Universities. Staff submission rates for Russell
Group departments stood at 84.8 per cent, against an overall average
of 60 per cent.
We should be pleased to elaborate on any of
the points set out above.
15 January 2002
|
