APPENDIX 26
Memorandum submitted by The Institution
of Civil Engineers
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In relation to Civil Engineering, exactly half
of the Units of Assessment (UoA) submitted achieved a 5*/5 rating
(15 out of 30 when the combined University of Manchester/UMIST
submission is considered as a single submission). This outcome
needs to be viewed in the context of the following information:
1. There was a marked reduction in the number
of submissions, from 43 in 1996 to 31 in 2001. Here it should
be noted that none of the nine graded 1 or 2 in 1996 made a submission
to this UoA in 2001 and some of the 3a/3b departments made submissions
elsewhere (Built Environment/General Engineering). However, most
did not make any submissions, presumably because Grades 1 and
2 generated no income.
2. The total number of staff submitted in
1996 was 703.6 (see table below). However, this was reduced in
2001 to 518.0 (less than 74 per cent). Much of this reduction
can be accounted for by the withdrawal of the lower graded departments.
However, many other departments, up to and including 5* level,
were very selective and only included their best researchers.
The net effect on research active staff in each Grade can be summarised
as follows:
| |
| Total Staff Submitted
|
| Grade | QR Multiplier
| 1996 | 2001
|
| 5* | 4.05 |
102.5 | 117.2
|
| 5 | 3.375 |
126.3 | 221.6
|
| 4 | 2.25 |
179.5 | 144.2
|
| 3(a) | 1.5
| 198.4 | 15.0
|
| 3(b) | 1.0
| 24.0 | 20.0
|
| 2 | 0 |
42.0 | -
|
| 1 | 0 |
31.0 | -
|
| Total |
| 703.6 | 518.0
|
When these numbers are combined with the 1996 QR multipliers
(used for England and NI) then only a 1 per cent increase in cost
accrues.
From the above table it should be noted that the total number
of 5/5* researchers in 2001—338.8—is less than 50
per cent of the total staff submitted in 1996—703.6. (As
an Institution, we have a national accreditation of degree courses
role and, from our data, we know that there are currently well
over 700 on staff in Civil Engineering departments in the UK.)
3. The overall criteria utilised by the Civil Engineering
Panel in 2001 was similar to that used in 1996 and 1992 and generally
reflects the recommendations made by the Institution in 1988 (copy
attached)[7]. In terms
of process, whilst the number of departments/research active staff
submitted has markedly reduced in Engineering, there has been
an increase in numbers of research active staff in the Humanities
(for example) from 1996 as well as an improvement in Grades. There
has also been a marked increase in numbers of staff submitted
in Physics and Biological Sciences where over 70 per cent of staff
achieved 5/5* Grades. Selected other examples are included in
Appendix A.
The efforts made by Engineering departments to satisfy all
the criteria, including research income/FTE staff, has had the
effect of clearly identifying and financially supporting selected
groups of high quality researchers across the UK, presumably,
in line with the wishes of Government. However, the significant
differences in the proportions of staff in the 5/5* Grades for
the other UoA could result in Government funding being diverted
away from Engineering (where Grade inflation has not taken place
without justification).
MEASURING THE
IMPROVEMENTS
In 1, 2 and 3 generic justification is given for an increasing
percentage of higher Grade UoA in Civil Engineering. However,
the question being asked is "Do the results represent a real
improvement in research performance?" Here, the answer in
the Civil Engineering UoA is a definite "yes" as similar
procedures were used in 2001 to 1996. In order to ensure that
standards were comparable, three of the 1996 Panel were also involved
in 2001 exercise (30 per cent of total number in Panel). A comparison
with the 1996 exercise has revealed that, in order to achieve
a comparable grade in 2001, a UoA had, in general, to perform
somewhat better. However, in order to avoid a mechanistic approach,
a different balance of criteria was used in 2001 with most emphasis
being on RA2—the quality of publications. Here, the overall
quality of research papers was generally much higher than in 1996—clear
evidence of an improvement in quality.
IMPACT OF
GOVERNMENT REACTION
HEFCE has produced detailed and complex Performance Indicators
to assess the quality of university research. The outcomes by
the various Panels have been confirmed by external international
assessors, yet it would appear that the Government may disregard
the improvements that have occurred. This will have damaging consequences,
as:
(a) many universities have invested heavily from their
own monies in order to produce an increase in performance and
respond positively to competition from their national/international
peers;
(b) the academic staff in universities across the country
have invested a considerable amount of time and effort preparing
for the 2001 RAE whilst, at the same time, improving their research
performance;
(c) industrialists, represented on Engineering Panels
and involved in joint projects with universities, will consider
that they have wasted their valuable time as they will perceive
that the Government has no real commitment to research;
(d) panel members from universities, who sacrificed much
of the summer of 2001, will be reluctant to co-operate in any
future exercises.
Thus, it is essential that the Government reacts much more
positively than the first responses from Minister Margaret Hodge
would indicate.
WAY FORWARD
Increases in research funding should be made available on
a selective basis in those areas of research which are of importance
to UK Ltd, eg Engineering, areas of Science and Medicine and where
there is well substantiated evidence of an improvement in performance.
The additional funds should be made available for the academic
year 2002-3 and should be distributed, in the short term at least,
using the 1996 HEFCE multipliers applied (in England and N Ireland)
to the new Grades. This will ensure that Grade 5*/5 departments
are protected. In essence, the Government will have achieved its
goal of concentrating research excellence in a small number of
universities (15 with 5/5* Grades out of a total of 52 Civil Engineering
departments in the UK).
In the longer term, the possibility of altering the 1996
HEFCE multipliers needs to be given careful consideration. However,
there is a danger that this could impact negatively on the regions.
[All 5* departments are in the South of the UK (Swansea, Cardiff,
Bristol, Imperial College and Southampton) whereas Grade 5s are
well-represented in the regions, eg Birmingham, UCL, Nottingham,
Sheffield, Manchester, Newcastle, Dundee, Edinburgh, Belfast.]
Removal of funding from departments graded 3(b) should not
be automatic as the very low levels of funding currently provided
((3(b) accounts for a mere 1 per cent of total) in reality renders
this unnecessary.
January 2002
7
Not printed. Back
|
