Conclusions and recommendations
34. When we embarked on our inquiry into the White
Paper, we had expected the main area of contention to be the issues
surrounding student fees and support. That is a vitally important
area of concern which we shall examine later in this report. However,
it is clear from the evidence we have taken that what the White
Paper has to say about research funding is also highly contentious,
particularly because of its implications for the structure of
the higher education sector. In this regard, perhaps the most
significant sentence in the chapter on research is that which
talks about the need to steer "non-research-intensive institutions
towards other parts of their mission, and [reward] them properly
for it, so that the RAE can be focused on the best research."[53]
35. The Government argues that further concentration
of research funding will provide real benefits:
"…better infrastructure (funding excellent
equipment and good libraries), better opportunities for interdisciplinary
research, and the benefits for both staff and students which flow
from discussing their research and collaborating in projects.
Modern research is less amenable to the 'lone scholar' model—for
example, one study found that by 1994, 88% of all UK HEI papers
involved two or more authors and 55% involved two or more institutions.
Furthermore, larger groups of researchers in a subject, or in
related subjects, perform particularly well—at least in
the natural and social sciences. Greater concentration of resources
also makes it easier to develop research only posts and to offer
better pay to attract excellent researchers."[54]
36. We note the high degree of concentration in peer
reviewed research grants, and we accept that a 'critical mass'
of researchers in an institution can bring considerable benefits
for the work of all; the research intensive universities are testimony
to that. As the University of Oxford says in its response to the
White Paper:
"One of the advantages of conducting research
across many disciplines within a university environment…is
that [interactions between individuals and groups] are fostered".[55]
37. There is already a significant concentration
of research funding; is it sensible to make that concentration
more marked, as the Government proposes? The fact that 75% of
RAE funding already goes to just 25 institutions is well known,
but that masks an even greater concentration. More than 29% of
RAE funding for 2003-04 will go to just four institutions, all
of them in the south-eastern part of England: the Universities
of Oxford and Cambridge, Imperial College and University College
London.[56]
The amount of RAE funding will increase by £244 million a
year by 2005-06[57]
compared with 2002-03, giving a total of £1,184,000,000.
If the same concentration applies as now, the 25 most research
intensive universities will receive £888 million a year,
and the top four will receive £343 million. Therefore, without
any change in funding patterns, the most research intensive universities
are in line for significant increases in quality-related research
funding.
38. There are undoubtedly advantages in having
research intensive universities, but where there is already a
significant concentration of funding, and where research funding
is increasing in real terms, we are not persuaded that even greater
concentration is necessary to achieve the Government's aim of
enabling the country's leading research institutions to compete
effectively with the world's best universities.[58]
We believe that a broad research base will provide more scope
for innovation and research excellence than an increasingly narrow
one.[59]
39. Another argument against significantly increased
concentration of funding is that the science and engineering model
on which the policy is based is inappropriate for other disciplines
where infrastructure costs are low and the main expenditure is
on research staff. The Secretary of State answered this point
in part by saying that he felt collaboration was important in
all disciplines. We would argue that this supports our view that
the case for even greater concentration of funding has not been
made; in most disciplines intellectual collaboration between researchers
in different institutions does not require resources to be concentrated
in a select few universities.
40. The Government argues that it is willing to fund
developing research where there is a clear sign that the quality
is moving up from 3a or 4 to 5 or 5*. The evidence we have is
that in the majority of cases departments do improve in quality
over time. 144 research units which in 1996 were rated 3a or below
were rated 5 or (in ten cases) 5* in 2001, and of the 439 units
rated 3a in 1996, 306 were rated 4 or higher in 2001.[60]
Departments rated 3a in 2001 will now receive no RAE funding unless
they are in one of the seven emerging research fields, so the
prospect of any outside those disciplines achieving 5 or 5* status
in the next assessment round must be slim.
41. The possible consequences of this change were
put to us by Professor Steve Smith of the University of Exeter:
"Cuts to grade 4 funding will seriously undermine
a number of subject areas that society and Government regard as
highly important, for example engineering, chemistry and education,
all of which had a high proportion of grade 4s…Chemistry
and engineering do not at present enjoy buoyant undergraduate
recruitment, so the planned reduction of RAE funding could lead
to the closure of such departments because they have no opportunity
to teach themselves out of financial trouble." [61]
It is worth noting that since the announcement of
the HEFCE research allocation for this year, there have been suggestions
that the chemistry departments at King's College London and at
the University of Kent may close.[62]
Medicine and music have also been hard hit.
42. When discussing RAE funding, Sir Howard Newby
told us:
"Part of the purpose of the money we put in
is to fund, in a broad sense, research capability.… There
has to be a certain amount of casting bread on the waters element
in the funding which we provide to institutions."[63]
This aspect of RAE funding now appears to have been
ended by the Government, as no department rated at less than level
4 can, as a matter of course, expect to receive any funding for
research. The definition of the calibre of research required to
gain a 4 rating is "Quality that equates to attainable levels
of national excellence in virtually all of the research activity
submitted, showing some evidence of international excellence".[64]
Research at this level is clearly beyond the 'casting bread on
the waters' stage.
43. Increased targeting of research support is the
method by which the Government is seeking to focus the attention
of the less research-intensive universities on other aspects of
their missions. As Sir Richard Sykes commented, the removal of
the RAE funding will not prevent institutions undertaking research;
it means they will have to seek funding from elsewhere, for example
from businesses, research councils, or charities.[65]
Over time, however, the absence of RAE funding is likely to erode
an institution's capacity to maintain the infrastructure required
to sustain and develop a research capability: any funding it does
receive will be for particular projects rather than for the carrying
out of research in general. Success in the RAE is not only important
for the funding awarded; it also provides a marker by which external
agencies can judge the quality of work and potential for development.
44. The Secretary of State said to us:
"I think it is a matter for HEFCE to decide
and allocate the money as between universities but that it is
a matter for the Government to make clear what the overall thrust
of the reason for funding higher education is".[66]
Whilst the 'overall thrust' may properly be a matter
for government, however, the way in which this is implemented
is important. Given that universities were planning for the long
term on the basis of the grading of departments in the 2001 RAE,
the Government should not have changed the pattern of funding
only two years later and at such short notice when departments
had no opportunity to plan for the change. It is particularly
difficult to understand why funding was changed in advance of
the recommendations of the Roberts review which, if adopted, will
have far-reaching effects on the pattern of quality-related research
funding.
45. Now we have seen what the Roberts review is
proposing, the Government's actions in reducing funding for middle
ranking departments seem even less appropriate. If the model of
research assessment proposed in the review is adopted it will
have a significant effect on the way in which funding is allocated.
The reduction in funding for 4-rated departments has confused
the issue, and in consequence may hamper discussion of the review's
recommendations because of hostility to the reduction in funding
within the sector. This would be particularly unfortunate for
the Government, because the review's proposals do clearly address
the Government's concerns.
46. The Secretary of State argued that the amount
of money involved in the rearrangement of the allocation of funding
this year was small in comparison to the overall research budget,
and of course he is right. The reduction in the budget for 4-rated
departments of £21 million for 2003-04 compared to 2002-03
does nevertheless represent a 15% decrease in funding for that
particular group, which explains why most universities are so
unhappy. Changing the pattern of funding in this way is likely
to result in money that has been spent building up research in
a department being wasted because funding is not provided in future.
47. We recommend that the Government reinstates
the £21 million taken from the budget for 4-rated departments
for this year. Such a change makes no sense when a new assessment
procedure has been proposed. Changes in funding should be introduced
alongside changes in assessment.
48. We agree with the Secretary of State that it
is important to ensure that there is a good regional balance of
institutions, providing significant research capability throughout
the country. There is currently a regional imbalance in research
funding, which further concentration is liable to increase. We
believe that every region in the country should have a university
or a cluster of universities of real international quality. It
may well be that this requires collaboration on the Yorkshire
White Rose model, for example. We recommend that the Government
works with HEFCE and the research councils to implement funding
mechanisms and incentives to promote and reward collaboration.
49. There is a danger, as a number of people said
to us, that reinforcing the current dominant position of a handful
of institutions could lead to stagnation. Institutions could become
complacent because they know they will continue to be supported
financially at the highest level. There must also be concerns
that the Roberts proposals for the least research intensive institutions
will prevent them from continuing even with their present level
of research. There needs to be the opportunity for 'unfancied'
institutions to develop their research capability and in due course
take their place amongst the best. Dr Steve Wharton, Chair of
the AUT Education and Development Committee, gave the example
of his own university:
"the University of Bath is now fourth in The
Times Good University Guide. It has a very [enviable] 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."[67]
The Government must continue to provide the opportunity
for institutions to follow the example of Bath, Warwick and others.
It says that it wishes to do that, but lack of funding for 3a-rated
and reductions in funding for 4-rated departments is going to
make it all but impossible for such institutions to develop a
significant research base. We urge the Government to reconsider
its position on RAE funding for middle-ranking departments for
the remainder of this RAE round.
50. For the future, under the Roberts proposals,
the Government should consider funding the research councils in
ways that will enable them to include full indirect costs in grants
made to institutions which receive little or no general research
funding. This would enable institutions at the bottom of the
funding ladder to continue to undertake research, to demonstrate
high quality, and, if they do so, to have the prospect of moving
back into the formal assessment system.
51. Other initiatives along these lines should also
be considered. Money might be given to researchers pursuing particular
projects rather than to an institution. Research councils might
be allowed to provide matched funding to institutions which obtain
funding from elsewhere, for example from charities. There must
be opportunities for all institutions, and researchers within
them, to develop their research potential for the good of the
sector as a whole.
52. The Government has sought to play down the connection
between good teaching and high quality research, but we are unconvinced
by the argument. A defining characteristic of higher education
in the United Kingdom is that research and teaching take place
in the same institutions. The sector does not contain separate
research institutes in the same way as in Germany, for example.
We believe it is important for the quality of students' educational
experience that research should continue to be undertaken in higher
education institutions . This does not mean that all institutions
should seek to emulate the research-intensive universities, or
that all teachers need to be engaged in cutting edge research,
but that teaching should take place in a research-active environment.
8 
