APPENDIX 5
Memorandum from David M Berry
I would like to submit the following information
as a user of the ESRC research council. I am a third year funded
DPhil student studying within the social sciences who won +3 award
starting in October 2002. I study at the University of Sussex
in the department of Media and Film and my research is into the
social form of the Internet generally and Open Source in particular.
Below I set out my comments regarding the ESRC.
ESRC RESEARCH AIMS
Generally the thematic areas are broad enough
to cover the research requirements of the research communities
and are useful in setting some prioritisation of the research
environment.
ESRC RESEARCH QUALITY
ESRC funded research is from my own experience
of meeting many other DPhil candidates (both funded and unfunded)
of high quality. The requirements to submit a detailed proposal
and argue the case for the research strengthens the researchers
own skills and provide a genuine advantage against those that
do not undertake this activity.
I would, however, suggest that an informal viva
forms part of the progression requirements in moving into later
years in research funding. This would ensure that the research
stays on track and prepares the student for the final viva panel.
ESRC RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
I feel that the ethical issues in undertaking
research in the social sciences are not taken seriously enough.
At the moment the ESRC application form has a one tick box that
allows you to "opt-out" of having to supply any ethical
considerations in your research. I feel strongly that this is
unacceptable and even should there be little or no ethical issues,
this should be argued cogently in the application for funding.
Although I do have issues with the overly quantitative
research methodologies that appear to be privileged by the ESRC,
it is possible to argue the case for qualitative research and
win funding. As I believe these two approaches to be two-sides
of the same coin. I am somewhat concerned that the ESRC encourages
a far to quantitative approach at the expense of encouraging an
understanding of a qualitative moment in all research activities.
SOCIAL FACTORS
From my own experience of ESRC procedures, ESRC
has an extremely backwards approach to the provisions for students.
I have a wife and a young daughter (who was unfortunately very
ill at birth due to prematurity), which severely affected my capacity
to undertake research. When contacted, the ESRC could only offer
to freeze funding; in effect removing any income we had as a family.
Additionally paternity leave although offered is unpaid (again
the funding is frozen).
In an age where there is a need to widen the
opportunities for education this is a damning example of structural
factors that inhibit the capacity for those with children and
families to undertake research. ESRC has an institutional view
of the student as in their early twenties and single and consequently
their policies reflect this bias. As the student demographic shifts
the ESRC should seek to change its policies to incorporate these
issues.
ESRC FUNDING LENGTH
ESRC funding stops at the end of the three year
period. Regardless of factors this leaves the research student
in a crisis situation whereby they must work to finish funding
their DPhil research. It seems obvious to me that some form of
extension (perhaps available through a similar competition) for
an additional year of funding would be appropriate. Colleagues
at Oxford University tell me the University actually accepts that
it will take four years to finish a DPhil. If this is the case
I would suggest that the funding reflects the reality rather than
some idealised fiction of how long ESRC/Government believe it
should take to finish.
ESRC INSTITUTIONAL
LINKS
I believe the ESRC is very proactive in its
attempts to create networks of researchers, institutional links
and research programmes. However, I believe that the huge multi-million
pound projects are generally less useful than the smaller programmes
due to the diminishing returns in terms of explanatory value in
aggregating social research. For example, when many research teams
complex and valuable research is boiled down into a final report
the results are often extremely bland and banal. For politicians
it may seem more advantageous to achieve an easily digestible
report that can be identified as the result of the research, however,
in terms of the research environment and encouraging risk-taking
in research, large research teams may sometimes tend towards organisational
structures that are conservative in nature and hierarchical in
decision making. This can stifle the possibility for important
and innovative research. Instead there should be a concentration
on the formation of constellations of research groups, working
in loose networks with research decisions taken in a decentralised
way.
6 October 2004
| 
