Examination of Witnesses (Questions 226-239)
WEDNESDAY 12 FEBRUARY 2003
MS SALLY
HUNT, DR
STEVE WHARTON,
MR TOM
WILSON AND
DR ELIZABETH
ALLEN
Chairman
226. I have to begin by a declaration of interest.
I am still a member of the AUT. I think I am described as a vestigial
member. Can I welcome Sally Hunt, Dr Steve Wharton, Tom Wilson
and Dr Elizabeth Allen to our proceedings? You did not give us
an opening statement. Would both of you like to say something
to start or are you happy to get straight on with the questions?
(Mr Wilson) Could I make three points
to begin with by way of a brief summary? The first has to be about
pay and staffing. Many people have pointed to the extraordinary
absence of any funding for an overall pay rise and that is certainly
going to be a very large part of our discussions in campaigning
about the White Paper. Allied to that is the extraordinary lack
of any mention of non-academic staff, which other people have
mentioned too. We would certainly like to take the opportunity
to point that out as well. The second point is about teaching,
where we very much welcome the apparent emphasis in the White
Paper on the importance of teaching, but as other people have
said this morning and elsewhere the fact that nothing like commensurate
funding has been provided for that is extraordinary and, thirdly,
on access, where again there is an apparent contradiction between
the aims of the White Paper which are laudably to increase access
and to carry on towards the 50% target and certainly increase
and widen the participation of people from the lower social classes;
but again that is, we think, likely to be contradicted. We think
expansion is likely to freeze because of the increase in fees
and top up fees.
(Ms Hunt) You will not be surprised to realise that
we have similar concerns in terms of pay. We are particularly
concerned at the very, very little mention this has within the
proposals that have been put forward, simply because universities
are their staff. That is what drives everything that is proposed
within this paper. A lot of what we will be talking about in response
to the Government's proposals is in that light. Secondly, the
research/teaching link. I think there is a lot of focus on other
aspects but what that part of the White Paper does is express
what a university is or is not and that is at the heart of the
debate about where we are going in terms of the university system
and what it is that we want. That is something that we would like
to spend some time talking about. Equally, we would like to have
a look at the overall idea of what it is that we want each and
every university to be. Is the Government looking for an across
the board system? Are they looking for all sorts of different
things within that and what are the mechanisms that they are putting
in place in order to achieve those ends? In terms of representing
members who work within those institutions, we have some questions
in terms of centralisation in some senses through HEFCE and decentralisation
on other aspects in terms of pay. There are a number of contradictions
that we would like to have a look at, but we are quite happy to
take any questions that you ask.
227. What are the best things in the White Paper
as far as you are concerned?
(Ms Hunt) Alongside everybody else, we would welcome
very much the recognition that there is a need, for example, to
reintroduce maintenance grants; that there is a need to recognise
that you have to support people if they are going to have a university
experience and make sure that you remove barriers. That has been
very welcome. The level is something that we would debate quite
strongly but certainly that is something that we have been very
positive about. It would be really churlish not to acknowledge
that there has been a real increase. That is something that we
have to be very positive about. We have to recognise that it is
a recognition of the arguments that we have been putting forward
for a very long time. Equally, I think we have to be very concerned
about how that is going to be translated out because the amount
of strings that are being attached to certain areas, the amount
of proposals to direct the way that funding is put back into the
system that do not address the fundamentals of underpayment, are
ones that we are very concerned about. I really want to understand
what the Government wants to achieve with this because you cannot
on the one hand have a Prime Minister who says, "Yes, there
is a serious underpayment issue in terms of not just academic
staff but all staff within universities," and at the same
time have a Chancellor who is concerned about frittering away
this extra funding. If you live on the same street, I am sure
that you can have disagreements but it is helpful if you are in
the same party that you do know what it is that you want. Again,
we come back to this contradiction. The overall message is one
that we are very positive about and we would want you to take
that away from today. The underlying concerns we have are about
how we are meant to deliver this.
(Mr Wilson) We find it difficult to answer the question,
frankly. It would be churlish and silly not to acknowledge the
19% increase in funding. That is very welcome. The fact that it
is almost all earmarked for various purposes and very largely
directed towards capital and research funding is we think somewhat
regrettable. The increase in fees is appalling and the notion
of top-up fees is highly destructive. We cannot see anything in
that remotely to welcome and we oppose that very strongly indeed,
as will we think most academics. It is partially welcome, I suppose,
that grants have been restored, but at such a derisorily low level
that it makes it really hard to see that these are anything more
than some kind of political token. We do not really welcome that
because it is not any kind of meaningful grant.
Jonathan Shaw
228. I would like to continue on the issue of
research that we were speaking to Universities UK about. You are
aware that currently 75% of research is very much concentrated
in 25 institutions and that is going to be narrowed even further.
What is the response from your two organisations?
(Dr Wharton) The idea in the White Paper that you
can separate research and teaching is a very bad one. We all know
that good teaching is informed by good research and that in many
cases that research goes beyond simple scholarship. If I could
give an example of my own institution, the University of Bath
is now fourth in The Times Good University Guide. It has
a very envious reputation for its research. In the early 1960s
the University of Bath was Bristol College of Science and Technology
and it was the decision of the Robbins Report to turn it into
a university and then to have a funding mechanism which enabled
it to build over time. That was what enabled it to produce its
current profile. The abolition of the binary divide in 1992 which
was a very welcome thing also gave a larger research mission to
some of the post-1992 institutions and they have had therefore,
if you look at it in comparative terms, roughly a quarter of the
time and certainly not the same amount of funding; yet, it appears
now from a casual observation and reading of the White Paper the
Government is essentially saying, "We are going to recognise
the diversity of institutions"—in other words, we are
not going to continue to fund those that have not yet had the
opportunity to reach those particular levels and to an extent
"condemn" them to becoming teaching only institutions.
I believe that would be a retrograde step. It would be bad for
the sector. It would be bad for career development because you
would then find that colleagues wishing to undertake research
would feel that they would not want to go to the university of
X, which is regarded as a teaching only institution. They would
much rather go to the university of Y, so you would not have diversity.
You would not have the migration across the sector which currently
exists.
229. Will it have an effect upon staff?
(Dr Wharton) Yes, a very negative effect on staff.
230. Not all; it might help some people.
(Dr Wharton) It might help them if they managed to
get in but if they are trying to apply to an institution which
has a very good research profile and the institution says, "They
are from a university that is a teaching only institution. How
on earth are they managing to do their research anyway?"—
231. They might be going into emerging research.
(Dr Wharton) It depends on where that is coming from
and how it is funded. If you are in a teaching-only institution,
it is unlikely to be funded from within the funding stream of
that particular institution.
232. I would like to bring you back to what
you said about the link between quality teaching and research.
There is a dispute about this because in the White Paper the Government
point to a publication in 1996 which examined studies containing
ratings for both teaching and research and found no relationship
between the two. Are you aware of this?
(Dr Wharton) Yes. I am sure members of the Committee
will also be aware of an Institute of Education study undertaken
in 2000 which found "a strong relationship between good research
and good teaching". Being taught by active researchers was
perceived as being important even in the third year of an undergraduate
degree, not just at postgraduate level. Some research undertaken
last year also indicates that students are very positive about
the trickle down benefits of research and the way that it feeds
into teaching. As you can see, there are two different points
of view. Coming from an institution which regards the link between
research and teaching as important, as do indeed colleagues in
both the AUT and I am sure NATFHE, this idea that you can somehow
separate them out and having a teaching only institution fundamentally
has very bad consequences for higher education in the United Kingdom.
(Dr Allen) I would agree with that. We also have to
be clear about what we mean when we talk about the link between
teaching and research. I do not think we would argue that you
cannot teach effectively if you are not at that moment engaged
in cutting edge research. An argument we would make very strongly
is that HE teaching has to be delivered in a research active environment.
There have to be people who are researching. Students have to
have access to people who are engaged in research and research
methods and staff themselves have to have an opportunity over
a period in their career to engage in subject scholarship and
research. To pick up this issue about the effect on recruitment,
one of the major thrusts of our response to the White Paper is
that we see it as increasing differentiation between institutions
and that would be one effect of top-up fees that we will see.
If you add to that greater selectivity in research and reduction
in research funding from some institutions academic staff will
have to make choices very early in their careers as to whether
they want to engage in research or not. If they are not going
to engage in research they will find it very difficult if they
then work in an institution which is a "teaching only"
institution, which is one of the potential effects of this, at
a later stage in their career, to move into a research institution.
We will see a further differentiation of institutions. I wanted
also to pick up the point about selectivity in research funding.
One of the frustrations in the White Paper on research is the
way it anticipates the outcomes of the Roberts review of research
which is going to report later in the year. NATFHE made its submission
to that review, in which we argued very strongly that whatever
the arguments for selectivity in what have been called the big
science areas there has never been the same argument for selectivity
across a whole range of other subjects and disciplines in higher
education. You do not need to concentrate research funding to
get good effects. In a sense, all our research funding is driven
by the model of big science which is not helpful to all kinds
of other research going on, particularly in the post-1992 institutions.
Indeed, there is a throw away line in the White Paper at the end
of one of the sections on research funding. It says, "Of
course these points do not all apply to arts and the humanities
the way they do to science and technology." There is a whole
range of other subjects which do not fall into either category
so I think there are real dangers there in the impact of emerging
good national research that is going on in a whole range of subjects
that is being neglected through this model.
(Ms Hunt) It is an interesting point of view, linking
that to access. If you look at it in terms of those universities
where there is the concentration of research funding, they are
potentially likely to be those which are likely to charge the
full £3,000. What happens in terms of how students have access
to research active institutions, research active particular areas
of study? Is that going to be across the board or quite hierarchical?
233. The Government said that they can collaborate.
(Ms Hunt) Yes, they have said that. I am yet to be
convinced.
234. Why?
(Ms Hunt) Because what is going on at the moment is
a movement from a system in which a lot of academics recognise
there is the theoretical, level playing field and there are an
awful lot of barriers already in the way of good research being
developed right across the board. Those are arguments that have
been teased out for a number of years between ourselves, the UUK,
for example, and others. Making it a system that is based purely
on collaboration, rather than recognising that there is a real
issue in terms of concentration of funding and under-funding seems
to me to be ignoring the problem to a very great extent. I am
not saying that it cannot happen but saying that that is the absolute
solution is not necessarily true.
Paul Holmes
235. To teach in a university you do not need
to have any qualifications and the White Paper is talking about
agreeing national, professional standards by 2004. All new teaching
staff will obtain a qualification which reflects these standards
by 2006. Are you involved in that process and do you think that
this will become a compulsory requirement for all new staff or
just a recommended one?
(Ms Hunt) We have always argued that there should
be strong professional support to develop good teaching and good
skills in order that you can do your job as an academic. We do
not have any issue in terms of the emphasis being placed on this
in the White Paper. We welcome it. It has been a real cause of
concern for many of our members that that core area of their work
has never had the recognition that it needs. We are very interested
in the aspects whereby you are looking to increase the support
that is there at university level. One of the issues we have had
repeatedly is that we do not believe that younger academics, those
at the beginning of their careers, have had the support at departmental,
university wide level to make sure that the skill sets are there.
It is a management issue and that is something that we would be
looking to work very closely with universities on in order to
develop those. Models such as Loughborough come to mind: excellent
programmes to make sure that people have the skills that they
need. Where we have a concern is that this should not become something
that is another layer of bureaucracy. That is an area that we
are rather worried about because what we believe we need to do
is to make sure that we strengthen this at grass roots level to
make sure that the skills are there across the board, not in absolute,
concentrated areas but something that can be attainable and achievable
by all. In that way, I think we will be able to develop some very
good models.
(Dr Wharton) I would like to correct the perhaps false
impression given that there is no guidance and training given
to university staff at the moment in how they go about their teaching.
Every university in the UK has staff development programmes. Probationary
lecturers are required as part of national agreements to undergo
a three year training programme which involves specialised input,
seminars, staff training, presence from practitioners. There is
no "formal teaching qualification" but that does not
mean that there is not any formal training that goes into precisely
that and which also examines, for example, elements of pedagogy,
the use of group work versus seminar work, versus how to prepare
your lectures etc., interactive peer review of what goes on. Every
university as part of its learning and teaching strategy has peer
review of teaching so there are already mechanisms in place to
observe teaching. Student feedback as it currently operates gives
the opportunity for students to express themselves on clarity
of lectures, clear explanation of aims and objectives and so on.
236. Why not make it a formal qualification
as it became in teaching, for example?
(Dr Allen) In many institutions effectively it is.
In the vast majority, if not all, of the post-1992 universities
and higher education colleges the staff are required to undergo
a programme which, in the vast majority of cases, currently is
accredited by the Institute of Learning and Teaching. When they
have completed that programme, they have an accredited qualification.
We welcome the proposals in the White Paper to go further and
to now look at creating a teaching quality academy, bringing together
the ILT and the learning and teaching support network. We have
some reservations about the proposals to include HESDA because
we have concerns about what happens to staff development and support
for people who are not engaged in teaching and learning support
but, setting that aside, we are very interested in working with
the various agencies and the proposal for a teaching quality academy.
I know that part of that is to go further in terms of developing
professional standards. One of the things that is important about
the proposals is that they are building on the very positive experience
of the subject centres. There are now 24 subject centres located
in institutions around the country which recognise that most academics
respond primarily in terms of their subject discipline. When they
are thinking about their learning and teaching, they want to discuss
teaching maths with other mathematicians. They want to discuss
teaching sociology with other sociologists. The subject centre
networks have really developed that area of work. Bringing them
together with the Institute for Learning and Teaching and the
development of accredited programmes for new staff and professional
development for existing staff could be very positive. What is
problematic is when you set that alongside some of the other proposals
in the White Paper for rewarding and recognising teaching which
have a very different past, which are about searching out the
stars and giving money to centres of excellence rather like the
research funding model in a way that I think is counter productive;
as opposed to the peer communities that have been built up with
a lot of Funding Council money as well over the last three years
with the learning and teaching support networks, which I think
are beginning to bear fruit.
237. It was suggested that one of the benefits
of making students pay fees and loans and going into £9,000
to £15,000-worth of debt, or £20,000 to £25,000
under the government scheme proposals, is that as they become
market consumers they would become more critical in their evaluation
of what was being provided by the universities. You mentioned
student feedback. Has there been any evidence since 1997 that
students are becoming more demanding about what they are receiving
for the huge debts that they are running up?
(Dr Wharton) It depends on your definition of "demanding".
If it is having a knock on my door at 9.15 asking me if I have
read the e-mail that was sent 15 minutes previously and demanding
an instant answer, there has been an increase in that sort of
thing.
238. Is that because of the e-mail culture?
(Dr Wharton) I think it is a bit of that. There is
a problem: the minute you begin to get people to pay for something
they automatically believe that they have a right to criticise
absolutely everything that is going on. It is a bit like going
into a shoe shop, buying a pair of shoes and discovering subsequently
that the heel has come off and going into a completely different
shop and complaining about it. It is important that students have
the opportunity to engage critically in the teaching and learning
process. They have always done that. The introduction of a tuition
fee did not necessarily change that spirit of enquiring dialogue
which has always existed. What perhaps it did was to introduce
a customer service mentality which is arguably alien to what higher
education should be about which is about developing critical faculty
and exploring new fields of knowledge.
(Dr Allen) I do not think that the fee issue is the
real driver in relation to learning and teaching. I think it has
made students more critical and in many ways that might be a good
thing but the real driver is the widening participation and access
debate. If you radically change the mix of students that you are
bringing into higher education then you have to think very critically
about the way in which you teach and support them. In the days
when you had a handful of independent, public school educated,
white middle classes coming in with a degree of preparation for
HE, you could teach them in a certain homogenous way. That is
no longer the case. It is not just about a very few people coming
in who need very particular support. The student body has changed
in the vast majority of universities over the last ten or twenty
years and people have to think in very different ways about how
they teach and support their teaching. Added to that, you have
changing technology and so on which will change the way you deliver
that.
Mr Jackson
239. I wanted to make a comment on the earlier
discussion about concentration of research and draw the attention
of colleagues and our advisers to a conflict in the evidence we
have received on a point of fact. I raised the question of whether
there had been a change in the mission of the post-1992 universities
after they became universities and whether there had been a diffusion
of research funding in the new universal university. The response
from the representatives of the universities' management was that
there had been no change in mission and there had not been any
diffusion of research funding. Dr Wharton has told us, I think
much more realistically, that post-1992 universities have embraced
changes in mission towards research and there has been a diffusion
of funding. These are factual questions. They are quite interesting
and important ones and I think we will want to get some briefing
from our advisers on them. I would also like to ask them to particularly
look at the question of the correlation between institutional
funding through one leg of the dual support system and, on the
other hand, the money which comes from research councils which
is based on peer review. If you have a trend to diffusion on the
one and a trend to concentration on the other, there is a suggestion
that there is a loss of focus on excellence and performance. The
question I would put to the group would be is there not a role
for grant funding from research councils as a way of addressing
the problem of the scholar or scientist in an institution which
may be losing research funding but who has a research contribution
to make?
(Mr Wilson) That was a proposal put, that something
like £500 for a scholarship could be separately identified
and separately funded. In a way, it has some superficial attractions
because currently it is the case that the research and scholarship
times, the scholarship opportunities and time for personal development
in a scholarship role, do not exist and do tend to get squeezed
out. However, HEFCE would say that they ought to be included within
teaching funding because it should be an integral part of teaching.
If it is recognised as such and if it is properly funded as such,
in a way it helps to reinforce the argument that teaching does
include scholarship and research and the two are in that sense
intermixed. That brings me on to the point you were making earlier
about mission drift in the post-1992s. It does not come naturally
to spring to the defence of the UUK for NATFHE but the kind of
research which is being pursued by the post-1992s has not changed.
The initial strengths of the polytechnic sector, which were very
much about applied research, consultancy, short course development,
working closely with industry and employers, have been very much
pursued, expanded and improved enormously. The facts show there
has been a tripling of the proportion of total research activity
in the UK university sector done by the post-1992s and that is
very much to their credit. At the same time, there has been a
convergence and a further mixing of the kind of research the White
Paper calls knowledge transfer. This is one of the many areas
where what is getting in the way is a metaphor of research which
is based on traditional, pure, big science research and most research
is not like that these days.
|
