QUOTA SYSTEM
53. In February 2004 ESRC announced that it was changing
the way it allocated its 1+3 postgraduate studentships from open
competition to a quota system. ESRC told us in its submission:
"This devolved process of decision making has greatly improved
the ability of HEIs to identify the highest calibre candidates
and guarantee them a studentship at an early date. The quota system
also means that institutions know in advance how many studentships
they will receive in the future, which greatly assists in the
planning of institutional and departmental research strategies.
It will also bring us more closely in line with the postgraduate
allocation procedures used by other Research Councils".[117]
We agree with ESRC that the
allocation of studentships through quotas should assist higher
education institutions in forward planning and strategy development.
However, it does not follow that the quota system will automatically
lead to better quality students being awarded studentships.
A more streamlined process within ESRC could presumably also enable
decisions on awards to be made at an earlier date.
54. The introduction of the quota system has been
controversial. Professor Andrew Dobson from the Open University,
for example, published a highly critical article in the Political
Studies Association newsletter:
"The quota system precisely denies PhD students
the opportunity to work with the large number of social scientists
who are not located in the quota outlets. […] the claim that
there was a 'clear consensus' that the ESRC should move to 1+3
quotas is not supported by the data. In fact 39 out of 64 replies
showed in favour. […] the move to quotas has caused massive
resentment among those outlets that strove mightily to gain 1+3
recognition in the 2003 research recognition exercise, on the
assumption that if they got it, they would be able to apply in
the 2004 round of studentships. Pulling up the ladder, in the
way the ESRC did, is and was demoralising."[118]
The latter point was also made by the Political Studies
Association which told us of its "strong reservations regarding
the ESRC's decision to move to quota awards for PhD studentships"
and its concern that "Departments who have gained ESRC recognition
for the excellence of their research training, but who are not
eligible for quota awards, have no incentive to continue to provide
intensive research training".[119]
55. The Political Studies Association additionally
suggested that the quota system could restrict the choices available
for students: "The Departments that will receive quota awards
are all fine ones (though it should be noted that not all are
rated at 5 or above). Nevertheless, they do not cover all the
areas of the discipline equally well. Students who wish to study
a sub-field in which none of the quota Departments have any particular
expertise, face a stark choice between funded research with non-specialists,
or self-funded research with a more appropriate supervisor".[120]
The British Psychological Society expressed a similar concern:
"The recently adopted quota scheme for 1+3 studentships focuses
resources on too few institutions and departments and too small
a set of expertise and therefore places at risk the future health,
effectiveness and international competitiveness of social science
research in the UK".[121]
56. We raised this point with Professor Diamond in
oral evidence. He acknowledged the potential problem but stated
that ESRC had retained "a competition for those places that
do not have quotas".[122]
In 2004 ESRC allocated 53% of its 630 standard studentships through
the 1+3 quota system and 9% through the 1+3 competition. The remaining
38% were allocated through the +3 competition. A further 137 awards
were made for collaborative studentships through open competition
in various schemes, such as CASE and the joint schemes between
ESRC and NERC, MRC and ODPM. We are concerned by the statement
in the ESRC Operating Plan 2004-05 that: "In the longer term
the allocation of all awards will be made through a quota mechanism".[123]
57. It is worrying that ESRC's move to allocate more
than 50% of its studentships through quotas has caused such divisions
in its user community. We are not satisfied with ESRC's explanation
that the resistance to the quota system is a reflection of the
fact that "change is always uncomfortable and people had
got used to the old system".[124]
We also query whether the advantages of critical mass for research
in the natural and physical sciences apply in equal measure to
the social sciences where access to costly equipment is a more
rare limitation.
ESRC must continue
to award a significant tranche of studentships through open competition.
58. We also asked ESRC to explain on what basis it
allocated the studentships to higher education institutions. Professor
Diamond told us that for the first two years ESRC had decided
to allocate studentships "on the basis of those places which
have had success previously, not just in the competition for '1+3'
but that had our students over a longer period of time […]
so as to make sure that we kept our studentships largely where
they had been".[125]
Allocation of studentships in subsequent years would be based
on "a large amount of modelling over the next couple of years
linked with a new recognition exercise to allow places which did
not currently have the recognition to receive studentships to
come in".[126]
Professor Diamond said ESRC was considering "a whole series
of possible inputs, such as the RAE, such as research income,
[…]such as the size of the student research base in a particular
place" and was likely to take into account "the need
to have geographical coverage of studentships".[127]
Traditionally Research Councils have made awards on the basis
of quality—allocating quotas of studentships in order to
maintain geographical coverage in a particular subject would represent
a significant departure from this principle. This issue is discussed
further in paragraph 66.
DEMOGRAPHICS
59. David Berry, a current ESRC PhD student, was
critical of the fact that "ESRC has an institutional view
of the student as in their early twenties and single and consequently
their policies reflect this bias".[128]
There is evidence to suggest that the demographic profile of the
holders of ESRC studentships might differ slightly from some of
the other Research Councils although, regrettably, differences
in the way that the various Research Councils collect data on
the diversity of their award holders hinder cross-Council comparisons.
It is, nonetheless, apparent that ESRC has a higher proportion
of female students than some other Councils (59% of the current
cohort) and ESRC told us that "from the 2003 intake of students
the percentage of offers to female candidates was significantly
higher for ESRC students than for the AHRB".[129]
60. ESRC also appears to support a larger percentage
of older students: "based on an average of student intake
at PhD level between 2002 and 2004, 56% of ESRC students are in
the mid range age bracket (26-39 years old) compared to just 16%
of EPSRC students […] Similarly, 32% of the current stock
of NERC students are in the mid-range age bracket".[130]
For both EPSRC and NERC, the largest proportion of students fall
into the under 25 age category.[131]
In addition, 50 of the current 2300 ESRC students are undertaking
their studies on a part-time basis. Professor Diamond told us
in oral evidence: "There are as many types of PhD students
in social science as there are people out there on the street".[132]
ESRC needs to be certain that its policies for studentships reflect
this.
It is important that Research
Councils monitor demographic trends amongst their award holders
and ensure that the support that they offer is appropriate to
their needs. We also recommend that the Research Councils agree
on a common approach to data collection on demographics to facilitate
comparison of the profiles of their award holders.
108 Q 64 Back
109
Q 64 Back
110
New Stakeholder Framework: Consultation with Stakeholders, Preliminary
Analysis and Discussion, ESRC, 2004 [not published] Back
111
HC (2003-04) 6 Back
112
Eighth Report of the Science and Technology, Session 2001-02,
Short-Term Research Contracts in Science and Engineering, HC 1046 Back
113
Ev 22 Back
114
Ev 37 Back
115
Ev 42 Back
116
Ev 41 Back
117
Ev 22 Back
118
Professor Andrew Dobson, ESRC quota awards…bad for research
training, bad for students, bad for supervisors, and bad for social
science, Political Studies Association News, Vol 15 (2), June
2004 Back
119
Ev 35 Back
120
As above Back
121
Ev 37 Back
122
Q 42 Back
123
ESRC, Operating Plan 2004-05 Back
124
Q 41 [Professor Broadfoot] Back
125
Q 43 Back
126
Q 43 Back
127
Q 43 Back
128
Ev 36 Back
129
Ev 42 Back
130
Ev 42 Back
131
Ev 42 Back
132
Q 73 Back
