APPENDIX 28
Memorandum submitted by the Coalition
Of Modern Universities
1. INTRODUCTION
1.01 The Coalition of Modern Universities
consists of 35 university institutions that are members of UniversitiesUK
and which were, prior to 1992, polytechnics and colleges funded
through the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. The history
and development of these institutions, many of which were established
originally in the nineteenth century, had been one of teaching
and a lesser engagement with research which was often closely
related to their local communities and industries. Prior to 1992
these institutions had no comprehensive access to research funding
through their funding bodies. They competed in the RAE in 1992
for the first time and have done so with increasing success in
1996 and 2001.
1.02 The history is important in this context
as, although there was research activity in many of these institutions,
the lack of access to the dual support funding system meant that
a sustainable research infrastructure could not be developed.
Despite this, there were areas of excellence prior to the creation
of the unified sector in 1992. These could only be sustained on
the basis of short term funding. Much of this research was of
an applied nature and frequently closely related to local needs.
1.03 Since the abolition of the "binary
line" and creation of the Higher Education Funding Councils
in 1992, there has been a remarkable growth of research activity
and capability in the post-92 universities. This is clearly evident
from a comparative review of results in 1992, 1996 and 2001 RAE
scores for the post-92 universities. This has demonstrated that
international excellence in research is found in all parts of
the higher education sector. It is, in many ways, a remarkable
achievement by the post 92 sector that so many units of assessment
were rated at 4, 5, and 5* in 2001 with 30 per cent of their research
active staff being rated as being assessed in these categories.
1.04 The RAE has proved to be a useful exercise
to establish peer reviewed assessment of the quality of research
in higher education. There is no doubt that it has sharpened accountability
across the sector and formed the basis for strategic planning
for research. It provides incentives for development of research
and the results of RAE 2001 demonstrate the success of the RAE
in stimulating research of national and international quality.
1.05 The CMU is in broad agreement with
the submission to the Select Committee by UniversitiesUK and we
wish to develop here some of the reservations identified in the
UniversitiesUK response from the perspective of universities that
have developing research activity from the low funding base described
above. Particular issues are the appropriateness of the definition
of excellence for research which is particularly related to local
issues, the distribution of funding, the opportunity for innovation
and development, the handling of interdisciplinary activities
and the bureaucracy and cost of the exercise.
2. NATURE OF
RESEARCH
2.01 The range of activity that can legitimately
be described as research is wide. The 2001 exercise attempted
to respond to criticisms of earlier exercises that insufficient
emphasis had been given to work of a more applied nature. Although
steps have been taken to embrace research more widely, there remains
a concern that departments with predominantly applied research
are disadvantaged by the strong emphasis given to international
excellence as being that work which is published in journals of
presumed international quality, with no reference being made to
the potential social, cultural or economic benefits which might
flow from the research. These international journals may be inappropriate
for areas of applied science and technology research that are
in a phase that comprises incremental additions to knowledge that
are too early for individual companies to be willing to fund,
but which can be brought to the developmental stage through further
research. This work is essential for successful technology transfer,
yet is rarely accorded a high score in the RAE, and falls outside
the technology transfer remit of HEIF/HEROBAC funding. There is
also an inevitable problem for institutions that are engaged in
contract research that it is often inappropriate for publication
in international journals, particularly because it is subject
to confidentiality restrictions. The result of this is that there
is inadequate funding to support properly the basic infrastructure
on which this work needs to be based. This makes it difficult
for universities to support the necessary development activity
to bring applied research close enough to the market place to
engage the interest of commercial funders. Further, the public
perception of quality is based on the RAE score, which also has
been used as a proxy measure by which such initiatives as research
equipment infrastructure funding are assessed. This can lead to
situations where significant research of national importance,
which will not meet the criteria for international excellence
in the RAE definitions can be starved of funding.
3. DEVELOPMENT
OF RESEARCH
ACTIVITY
3.01 It is a basic principle of UK higher
education that good teaching is underpinned by research. For universities
that only had access to "dual support" funding from
1992, there has been a great need for some base-line development
funding to establish and nurture developing research areas. They
have not been able to call on contributions from the significant
research funding available to more traditional universities and
confirmed through the RAE exercises. This was recognised by the
HEFCE in 1992 through the DevR funding stream, which whilst set
at a low level, provided important seed-corn development funds.
The improvement of research performance in 1996 showed the effectiveness
of these limited funds. That fund was replaced in 1997 by the
CollR stream of funds which was similarly targeted at building
capacity. The remarkable improvement in RAE results in 2001 by
the recipients of this funding showed again the effectiveness
of relatively small amounts of money in building capacity and
capability. The HEFCE review of the RAE recommended the discontinuation
of this fund from 2002. This will bear heavily on those universities
with emerging and developing research, particularly if the allocation
of funding to units assessed at 3a, 3b is significantly less in
real terms from 2002 than in previous years.
3.02 It was the public ambition of Funding
Councils, the DTI and the Research Councils, to support the principle
set in the Dearing Report that research excellence should be funded
no matter where it is found. Research funding should set out,
not only to sustain research excellence but also to provide opportunity
to stimulate new areas of excellence. Whilst the RAE is capable
of providing a ranking of research quality in any one subject
area it reflects a moment in time and not the trajectory of development
or capability. Innovation and the ability to hold on to the competitive
edge come from the development of the unexpected not just the
expected. Maintaining flexibility is therefore a wise and essential
precaution. Whilst the allocation of funding to new areas will
always carry some risk, it can be done much more easily within
institutions if they have a large research funding base. It is
almost impossible to do this within institutions with small but
developing research funding bases, yet innovation and excellence
can flourish in these universities. The success in terms of value
for money and stimulation of emergent research activity of the
DevR and CollR streams of funding is clear. Removal of these funds
just as new research activities are achieving their first successes
will not only endanger that work but also the opportunities for
future innovation in these universities.
4. ALLOCATION
OF RAE FUNDS
4.01 The all-round achievement of universities
in the RAE process in 2001 is causing problems in the allocation
of funding. This is well documented. The CMU recognises the dilemma
faced by the Funding Councils over this. We support the plea by
UniversitiesUK for an increase through new funding for the overall
research budget in SR2002. The decision to protect the value of
5* funding, whilst important to sustain these areas of excellence,
has potentially serious consequences for the funding of the lower
scores, particularly 3a, 3b. We welcome the decision to ensure
funding for 3a, 3b but the level is as yet undefined. The boundaries
between 3a and higher scores are finely judged yet there is a
huge differential in funding. A score of 3a identifies the research
as of attainable levels of national excellence in at least two
thirds of work with some evidence of international excellence
(for 3a). For post-92 universities this usually represents emerging
research excellence that, properly funded, will be the internationally
excellent research of the future.
4.02 In the interests of developing the
research base of this country, supporting the knowledge based
economy, underpinning the teaching of students and providing continued
motivation to staff who have worked exceptionally hard to build
their research base, it is essential that adequate funding is
found to sustain this work and support its development to higher
levels.
5. INTERDISCIPLINARY
RESEARCH
5.01 Prior to RAE 2001, it was recognised
that there were problems in assessing research that was truly
interdisciplinary and did not fall readily into the subject based
units of assessment. It is in the nature of research that many
advances, particularly in new areas, take place at the interfaces
between established disciplines, often more than two disciplines
being involved. This makes it difficult to assess the real impact
of such work when it does not fall easily into single discipline
panels. These are most unlikely to map readily onto the individual
institutional structures, thereby complicating the process by
which submissions can be made into the subject based panels. We
would support a further review of the basis for the assessment
of interdisciplinary research to ensure that excellence can be
clearly identified.
6. RAE PROCESSES
6.01 The RAE has, over the last decade been
a useful instrument in helping institutions to raise the quality
of their research effort so that the vast majority of the 50,000
academics submitted to this last exercise have been judged by
their peers, both nationally and internationally, to be producing
research of national or international levels of attainable excellence.
It has been progressively refined and has demonstrated the excellence
of research across the higher education system. It has undoubtedly
sharpened accountability and given a much more strategic thrust
to research management. The post-92 universities have shown that
they deliver excellence in research and that they have developed
rapidly improving research capability. They have achieved this
from a low starting point in terms of research funding and have
made excellent use of the relatively small amounts of DevR and
CollR initiative funding. The RAE is still founded on a strongly
defined subject base approach, which while it undoubtedly has
its strengths does not map readily onto the structures and activities
of every university. The cost of submission to the RAE to institutions
is large. This bears particularly heavily on those universities
with relatively small research funded activity that cannot sustain
large administrative offices to support research. We would urge
the Funding Councils to review carefully the cost and burden of
any future RAE in line with the principles being established by
the Better Accountability initiative of HEFCE, particularly in
the light of the comprehensive excellent results that are now
being achieved.
Dr Geoffrey Copland
Chair, Coalition of Modern Universities and
Vice-Chancellor and Rector, University of Westminster
January 2002
| 
