| 1. | The positive feedback from the social science community about the way in which ESRC conducted the consultation on its new strategic framework is a credit to the Council. ESRC needs to build on this good work by continuing to engage with its community in its forward planning. (Paragraph 11)
|
| | |
| 2. | It is encouraging that ESRC is building strong relationships with a wide range of Government Departments. We believe that this interaction should strengthen the quality of policy making in these Departments. We nevertheless urge ESRC to exercise caution to ensure that its work programme does not become overly focussed on meeting Government priorities at the expense of giving researchers with strong proposals the freedom to pursue issues that they believe are important. (Paragraph 15)
|
| | |
| 3. | In view of ESRC's interest in, and the Government's stated commitment to, evidence-based policy making, we believe that there would be significant merit in ESRC conducting periodic appraisals of the extent to which specific Government policies in areas within ESRC's remit are based on sound evidence. This would remind Government of its commitment to evidence-based policy making and would also be a useful indicator of the relevance and value of ESRC-sponsored research. (Paragraph 16)
|
| | |
| 4. | We encourage ESRC to ensure that research of relevance is disseminated widely to the Regional Development Agencies and advise Regional Development Agencies to make more use of ESRC expertise in planning and conducting research to underpin policy making. (Paragraph 17)
|
| | |
| 5. | ESRC has a remit to fund a broad portfolio of research and to support UK researchers in carrying out work of world standing and relevance. We therefore welcome ESRC's increasing willingness to fund social science of global rather than just European significance. (Paragraph 19)
|
| | |
| 6. | ESRC's 2:1 ratio of directed: responsive mode funding is out of step with other Research Councils and is unpopular with its research community. We recommend that ESRC respond without delay to the calls from its community to increase significantly the proportion of responsive mode funding. (Paragraph 21)
|
| | |
| 7. | ESRC should increase the funding available for responsive mode applications by reducing the size of its contingent of Research Centres. In addition, ESRC needs to consider whether a shorter time frame, such as five years, for Research Centre funding would give better value for money. (Paragraph 26)
|
| | |
| 8. | We are pleased to find that ESRC is attempting to tackle the low success rates for responsive mode grant applications by managing demand and improving the quality of applications. ESRC must now significantly enhance the funding available for responsive mode grants. Until it does so, overall success rates are unlikely to improve significantly. (Paragraph 29)
|
| | |
| 9. | It is not sufficient that ESRC is content with its procedures for assessing interdisciplinary applications: the research community must also be convinced that these applications will be given proper consideration. If this does not happen, the perceived lack of a level playing field will act as a disincentive for researchers to submit interdisciplinary applications, or indeed to engage in interdisciplinary research. (Paragraph 31)
|
| | |
| 10. | The impact of the move towards full economic costs on grant application success rates needs to be carefully monitored at a cross-Council level. (Paragraph 32)
|
| | |
| 11. | ESRC needs to acknowledge the role that it plays in the increasing concentration of research in a small number of institutions. We recommend that ESRC co-ordinates its activities with the other Research Councils and with HEFCE to ensure the continued funding of excellent social science across a wide range of departments, institutions and regions. (Paragraph 34)
|
| | |
| 12. | We support ESRC's decision to use a streamlined peer review process for small grant applications. (Paragraph 37)
|
| | |
| 13. | We note that there are still a number of discrepancies in the peer review processes utilised by the various Research Councils. It is not clear why best practice in peer review should vary significantly between the Research Councils. Moreover, harmonisation of the peer review systems used by the Research Councils should facilitate the evaluation of applications for interdisciplinary research that fall within the remit of more than one Research Council. (Paragraph 39)
|
| | |
| 14. | ESRC must continue to work closely with the other Research Councils and the Funding Councils to reduce the deleterious side-effects of the RAE and encourage the RAE subject panels to be open and clear about what they will be measuring and how they intend to do it. (Paragraph 40)
|
| | |
| 15. | Longitudinal studies and the collection and maintenance of national datasets are essential to build an evidence base to inform effective policy development. Such work is, however, costly and it is unreasonable to expect ESRC to fund these major activities out of its modest budget. Where a dataset is of particular relevance to a Government Department, the Department should shoulder the majority of the financial burden, whilst taking advantage of ESRC's skills and experience. We recommend that ESRC pursues this issue with the relevant Departments. In addition, given the reliance on these datasets by both Government and the research community, we recommend that future Spending Review allocations ensure that the collection and maintenance of national datasets are fully funded to prevent ESRC having to cut funding for other research activities to preserve these important statistics. (Paragraph 43)
|
| | |
| 16. | We are pleased to see that ESRC has been engaged in discussions with the other Research Councils regarding research for international development. (Paragraph 45)
|
| | |
| 17. | ESRC and the newly-established Arts and Humanities Research Council must clarify their remits in areas of potential overlap and communicate these to their research communities at the earliest possible opportunity. (Paragraph 46)
|
| | |
| 18. | We welcome the steps taken so far to harmonise the administrative functions of the Research Councils. (Paragraph 47)
|
| | |
| 19. | We recommend that ESRC remedies the current lack of support for new researchers by introducing a ring-fenced fund for newly-appointed investigators as soon as possible. We support the suggestion by ESRC that these awards should include training and development tailored to the needs of these researchers. (Paragraph 49)
|
| | |
| 20. | We support ESRC's decision to move towards studentships funded for four years but also recommend that ESRC retains sufficient flexibility in the studentships that it offers to meet the diverse needs of both the candidates and higher education institutes in the social science community. (Paragraph 52)
|
| | |
| 21. | 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. (Paragraph 53)
|
| | |
| 22. | ESRC must continue to award a significant tranche of studentships through open competition. (Paragraph 57)
|
| | |
| 23. | 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. (Paragraph 60)
|
| | |
| 24. | We are deeply concerned by the skills shortages afflicting, in particular, the quantitative branches of social science. It is hard to see how significant progress towards rectifying these shortages can be made through deployment of ESRC's limited resources. Furthermore, skills shortages in quantitative subjects affect all the Research Councils. If Government is serious about addressing skills shortages in key subjects it needs to find a more effective mechanism to achieve this. We recommend that a cross-Council approach be developed to the reversal of this erosion of the skills base. (Paragraph 66)
|
| | |
| 25. | We recommend the establishment of a national Strategic Capabilities Fund to address skills shortages and ensure national coverage in key subject shortage areas by building local capacity. Measures that could be supported include Research Centres and quotas for studentships in key subject areas or strategic geographical locations. The management of the fund would be co-ordinated by RCUK, but would also require the participation of HEFCE and the Regional Development Agencies. (Paragraph 66)
|
| | |
| 26. | We are pleased that ESRC has undertaken to conduct international reviews of subject areas, as pioneered by EPSRC. ESRC should make a firm commitment to do this in its next Operating Plan. (Paragraph 67)
|
| | |
| 27. | We applaud ESRC's efforts to improve the communication and dissemination of its research and encourage it to continue, in particular, to provide opportunities for award holders to enhance their skills in this area. ESRC's work in this area serves as a model of good practice for other Research Councils. (Paragraph 70)
|
| | |
| 28. | ESRC has taken laudable steps to improve the quality of its science and society activities but it needs to ensure that it evaluates rigorously the effectiveness of these activities. (Paragraph 71)
|
| | |
| 29. | We are pleased that ESRC guarantees that negative results arising from research that it funds are made freely available within a reasonable period after the project has been completed. (Paragraph 72)
|
| | |
| 30. | ESRC-funded researchers have done some valuable work with industry. We support these efforts and hope that industry will continue to engage with UK social scientists. We trust that ESRC is taking steps to rectify its lack of data collection on its interaction with industry. (Paragraph 73)
|
