APPENDIX 8
Supplementary memorandum from the Economic
and Social Research Council (ESRC)
RELATIONSHIP WITH
GOVERNMENT
1. What parameters do you use in balancing
your role in providing research to inform policy making with responding
to the interests of your research community?
The ESRC has three long established principles
that guide its research funding activities: quality, relevance
and independence. Within that framework we seek to establish an
appropriate balance between work that is relevant to policy and
practice and work that is more basic or "curiosity driven".
This does not mean that our community is only interested in the
latter and we do not see a conflict between the two roles identified
in the question. Many of the awards we make through our responsive
mode are for work of an applied nature. Similarly, when we establish
a new research programme in a policy relevant area this is generally
oversubscribed in terms of the number of applications we receive.
That said, we are conscious of the need to maintain
an appropriate balance between responsive funding and identifying
and commissioning work in areas of national priority. Both are
central to our mission. In recent years the split between the
two has been roughly 3:5. The last two spending review rounds
have seen an increase in the number of cross-council programmes
in which we are involved but we have also increased the budget
of our Research Grants Board last year and this to reflect the
growing demand in that area. In addition, our recent consultation
on future priorities indicated that our community would favour
a shift towards responsive funding. The precise nature of this
balance over the next few years is something that our Council
will be making decisions about in April next year.
2. Do you have any evidence that the appointment
of Departmental Chief Scientific Advisers has improved the use
of social science by the relevant Departments?
Although there is no proven causal relationship
between the appointment of Departmental Chief Scientific Advisers
and the increased use of social science research, the ESRC has
observed a greater demand for its research in the past five years.
In fact, this is due to standards set by government for transparent
decision making and the use of evidence in policy formulation.
Chief Scientific Advisers have encouraged a positive approach
to the benefits of social science research.
Recently, Government departments have been consulted
about research methodologies. In these discussions, two trends
have become apparent: first, the interest in ongoing professional
development opportunities for government research staff, and second,
an increased desire for regular interaction with academic social
science researchers.
Other factors have also contributed. Concordat
discussions have provided the ESRC and its partners with a structured
forum to identify current and prospective research that is relevant.
Senior ESRC staff, particularly the Chief Executive, have been
pro-active in making ESRC research known as well as responding
to departmental issues.
3. Are Concordats established on the initiative
of ESRC or do you wait for Departments to approach you?
The origins of Concordat agreements fall into
three categories. First, there is a small number which have been
established for more than five years. Second, some have been sought
by a government department which has heard of the benefits of
a formal collaborative agreement from other departments. The Department
of Work and Pensions is an example of this category. Third, and
now the majority, successful collaborations have encouraged both
parties to develop a formal Concordat agreement as a basis for
a subsequent series of mutually beneficial activities.
No matter what the origin has been, the ESRC
took a considered decision a little over a year ago to transform
passive agreements into active strategic alliances where there
is joint research, studentships, fellowships, collaboration and
ongoing engagement. We are currently negotiating a number of possible
new concordats with, for example, the Department for International
Development.
4. Do Concordats entail co-funding of projects
and programmes by ESRC and the relevant department? How is funding
divided between ESRC and the relevant Departments on joint projects?
Joint funding is an increasingly regular feature
of the Concordats and is routinely discussed. Many now entail
co-funded projects and programmes. For example, joint studentships
between the ESRC and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and
the ESRC and the Welsh Assembly Government are funded equally.
More recently, we agreed shared funding with the Scottish Executive
for research on demographic trends within Scotland.
For the Urban Renewal Network, the Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister met approximately half of the costs.
The ESRC matched them.
5. Do you have Concordats, or equivalent arrangements,
with any Regional Development Agencies? How much demand is there
from the RDAs for your research?
Formal arrangements with Regional Development
Agencies are not yet as developed as with Government departments
and the Devolved Administrations of Northern Ireland, Scotland
and Wales.
However, the ESRC is increasingly interacting
with RDAs. A two-day conference on Regional Policy, involving
a dozen ESRC researchers, planned jointly by the Association of
Regional Observatories and the ESRC will be held in Durham on
16-17 November. The Conference has attracted over 180 participants
from regional bodies, an attendance that reflects significant
interest in ESRC research and its application.
RDAs made submissions to the recent nation-wide
ESRC consultation. They are also included in the stakeholder survey
that the ESRC is undertaking. These processes and a series of
bi-lateral meetings that have begun will form the basis of a client-led
response by the ESRC to future collaboration and we envisage a
number of concordat type agreements resulting from this.
The ESRC is a member of the South West RDA Rural
Research Panel and has contributed the findings of several major
research enterprises to the work of the Panel, including from
the Cross-Council Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) Programme.
RESEARCH
6. Can you provide us with details of (a)
how many of your Research Centres you have continued to fund beyond
the initial 10 year period and (b) what has happened to the Research
Centres once your funding for them has ceased?
In 1994-95 the Council was supporting 21 Research
Centres. Of these, five centres have had continuation of funding
beyond the initial 10 year period. Of the 16 which have not, all
have continued directly or indirectly in most university departments.
These are:
Centre for the Study of African Economies—this
is now part of the Department of Economics at the University of
Oxford. ESRC funds a Global Poverty Research Group which is an
interdisciplinary research programme with Manchester University;
Centre for Business Research—this centre
reaches the end of its 10 year period of support in 2004-05 and
was not successful in securing a further period of ESRC funding.
It is too early to say how the University of Cambridge will take
this forward;
Centre for Research in Development, Instruction
and Training—this centre is now part of the University of
Nottingham's Learning Sciences Research Institute;
Centre for Educational Sociology—this
is now a centre within the University of Edinburgh's Department
of Education and Society;
Centre for Research into Elections and Social
Trends—this is now based jointly at the National Centre
for Social Research and the Department of Sociology at the University
of Oxford;
Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations—this
is now a centre of the University of Warwick;
Financial Markets Centre—this centre reaches
the end of its 10 year period of support in 2004-05. The ESRC
understands that the London School of Economics and Political
Science will continue to support its work as the Financial Markets
Group;
Cambridge Group for the History of Population
and Social Structure—researchers from this group are now
working in the Historical and Cultural Geography Cluster of the
Department of Geography at the University of Cambridge;
Centre for Housing Research and Urban Studies—was
taken over by the Department of Urban Studies at the University
of Glasgow;
Human Communication Research Centre—this
is an interdisciplinary research centre continuing at the Universities
of Edinburgh and Glasgow;
Centre for International Employment Relations
Research—some of the researchers formerly employed at the
ESRC centre now work for the Industrial Relations Research Unit
at the University of Warwick;
Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre—this
has now merged with the Northern Ireland Economic Council to form
the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland, supported
by the Northern Ireland Executive;
Centre for Science, Technology, Energy and Environmental
Policy—some of the researchers formerly employed under the
ESRC Research Centre award are now working at SPRU Science and
Technology Policy Research at the University of Sussex;
Social and Applied Psychology Unit—some
of the researchers formerly employed at this centre are now working
in a new ESRC centre with a focus on Organisation and Innovation,
also at the University of Sheffield;
Centre for Social Work Research—this is
now part of the Department of Applied Social Science at the University
of Stirling;
Transport Studies Unit—with the end of
ESRC funding in 2004-05 the ESRC understands many of the researchers
will be employed by the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at University College London.
7. What evaluations have you carried out to
determine the effectiveness of your investment in Research Centres
as opposed to other approaches to funding research (such as responsive
mode grants)?
The Council evaluates the performance of all
of its Research Centres before deciding whether they are eligible
to bid for a further five-year period of core-funding. Last year,
for example, the Council reviewed the performance of the Centre
for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, the
Centre for Research in Innovation and Competition, the Complex
Products and Systems Innovation Centre, and the Centre for Organisation
and Innovation. In addition, we evaluate the work of our Centres
after their period of ESRC funding has come to an end.
Centre reviews are managed by the Council's
Research Evaluation Committee, and include assessments from a
range of independent commentators including senior international
academics and research users in the private and public sectors.
The results allow the Council to determine the effectiveness of
its investment in Centres as opposed to other types of investment.
The annual report of the Research Evaluation Committee contains
analyses of all completed evaluations across the centres, programmes
and responsive modes and includes comparative assessments across
these approaches. In particular, the evaluations investigate how
Centres have used their longer-term funding to generate added
value in comparison with supporting stand-alone research projects
and recent evaluations have highlighted the particular achievements
of our centres in relation to the development of dynamic and responsive
research agendas, capacity building, career development, sustained
user-engagement and the leverage of external co-funding.
8. How do you decide on the balance between
funding for research projects and for training? Has this balance
remained constant over the past 10 years? Do you expect this balance
to change in the future?
This forms part of the longer-term strategic
role of our Council and is an issue we will be considering carefully
in the coming months in the light of the responses to our consultation
and current evidence on the needs of our research community and
other stakeholders. Over the last 10 years training has accounted
for approximately 30% of the Council's budget. This proportion
has increased in the last two years but this reflects the increases
in the postgraduate stipend announced in SR2002 rather than increases
in volume. Given the size of our community and its future needs
in the light of the demographic data we presented in our initial
submission, we believe it is essential to support a minimum of
600-700 new doctoral students each year. Whether this will represent
a growing or decreasing proportion of our overall budget in the
future is dependent on a range of other factors not least our
allocation in the current spending review.
9. Please provide us with a breakdown of the
success rates for Research Centres, programmes and responsive
mode awards for the last 10 years.
Attached at Annex 1.
TRAINING
10. What research have you done to understand
the reasons behind the skills shortages in subjects such as statistics,
economics and management?
In addition to our own data on applications
and awards for both studentships and research grants, a number
of reports have highlighted the shortage of economists and the
need to address urgently the recruitment of economists. These
include the ESRC commissioned report on UK Economics PhDs and
ESRC Studentship Demand in 1999 undertaken by Stephen Machin and
Andrew Oswald and more recently the British Academy's Review of
Graduate Studies in the Humanities and Social Sciences, and the
Commission on the Social Sciences report in March 2003 "Great
Expectations: the Social Sciences in Britain". Although there
are a range of explanations for these shortages, financial considerations
such as the increasing burden of undergraduate debt and the alternative
salaries and career prospects available to people in these disciplines
are key factors.
Capacity problems in quantitative methods were
highlighted in the ESRC's commissioned Review of UK Social Statistics
in 1999. This followed the Office for National Statistics' review
of multi-purpose surveys in 1996. In 2000, Dr Gordon Marshall's
paper "UK Capacity in Quantitatively Based Social Science
and Analytical Economics" resulted from a consultation exercise
involving the four ESRC Research Boards, the academic community,
government departments and other key users, exploring the extent
of the problem and seeking possible solutions. In terms of capacity
building at the postgraduate level, these reviews resulted in
the introduction of the Centre Linked Studentships and Secondary
Analysis Studentships and the identification of Statistics as
a priority area for studentships and postdoctoral fellowships.
11. What proportion of your studentships are
prioritised for subjects where there are skills shortages (please
indicate how many for each subject) and what proportion are prioritised
for your Research Centres and programmes (please provide details)?
23.3% of our awards this year were earmarked
for identified priority areas and this proportion will increase
in the future. These were as follows:
| Economics | 62 awards (10% of the total)
|
| Statistics and demographics | 14 awards (2.3% of the total)
|
| Management and Business Studies | 58 awards (9% of the total)
|
| Socio-Legal Studies | 13 awards (2% of the total)
|
Our centres and programme award holders are, of course, able
to apply for ESRC studentships through the existing routes. In
addition, we run a separate scheme for studentships linked to
ESRC Centres and 16 awards were allocated across nine centres
this year.
12. What proportion of your studentships are allocated
by the quota system and what proportion are available for open
competition?
In 2004, 332 of the 630 standard studentships were allocated
through the 1+3 quota allocations (53%). 237 awards were offered
through the +3 competition (38%) and 61 through the 1+3 competition
(9%). In addition to the standard studentships a further 137 awards
were allocated on a competitive basis through a number of other
dedicated schemes including CASE and joint studentship schemes
with NERC, MRC, ODPM and the Welsh Assembly.
13. In future will all ESRC studentships provide funding
for four years? If so, is there a timetable for this? How will
you ensure that this does not lead to a decrease in the number
of studentships that you are able to fund?
Over half of current ESRC studentships provide funding for
four years to include an initial year of intensive research training
at Master's level as part of an integrated four year programme
of research training. Three year studentships are however still
available for candidates where the equivalent Master's level training
has already been completed and it is anticipated that whilst the
demand for three year studentships is expected to decline gradually
over time, there will always be provision on this basis.
14. What evaluations will you undertake before deciding
whether to expand the 1+3 scheme?
A full independent evaluation of the 1+3 model of funding
will be conducted during 2005 as the first 1+3 cohort completes.
The outcome of this review will be considered along with a review
of the demographic profile of the social science research base
and a review of employers' needs, both of which have also been
commissioned by the Council and are due to report in 2005. These
reviews will inform the Council's short and long term strategies
for the allocation of awards and the development of the 1+3 model.
15. Do the demographics of your postgraduate students differ
significantly from those of other Research Councils? Please provide
us with information on the numbers of part-time students and any
relevant data that you hold on the diversity of ESRC students
and award-holders.
In terms of the current full stock of ESRC studentships,
59% of award holders are female and 41% male. Indeed from the
2003 intake of students the percentage of offers to female candidates
was significantly higher for ESRC students than for the AHRB.
Over the last three years of allocations, the average distribution
of awards by ethnic origin is 60% to White UK/Irish candidates,
24% to White European candidates, 3% to Asian (Indian) candidates
and 1.5% mixed race. The remaining proportion covers candidates
across all the other Asian or Black origin categories.
Data from other Research Councils indicates that the ESRC
has a higher proportion of older student starters (ie in the 26-39
age bracket), than other councils. For example, 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 compared to just 16%
of EPSRC students. The largest proportion of EPSRC students are
under 25. Similarly, 32% of the current stock of NERC students
are in the mid-range age bracket with a larger proportion under
25. Data on the age distribution of this year's new starters (+3
award only) is at annex 2.
Fifty out of the current stock of 2,300 studentships are
part-time award holders on either a 1+3 or +3 basis.
KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
16. You state in your memorandum that ESRC programmes commit
5% of their budget for dissemination and engagement activities.
On what basis was the figure of 5% selected? Do you expect this
percentage to increase in future?
Five per cent of an average budget for a research programme
represents about £130k. This is regarded as an appropriate
amount for the employment of staff, the organisation of events
and the publication of materials without being so large that it
would reduce the amount of research that we could support within
such a programme.
We have no immediate plans to increase this percentage across
the piece. However, this does not preclude the allocation of additional
resources for specific activities as appropriate to the particular
programme and area of work. For example, we have supported the
use of media fellows linked to programmes to help disseminate
research findings and have allocated some additional resources
to programmes and centres to develop their websites. We would
expect this targeted additional funding to continue.
17. How do you assess the effectiveness of the engagement
activities of individual ESRC Centres and programmes? What steps
do you take when the engagement activities of your Centres or
programmes do not meet your standards for effectiveness?
At the outset centre and programme Directors are asked to
submit engagement plans which are assessed by the Strategic Research
Board liaison member and ESRC officers. If these are not satisfactory
they are asked to make changes.
We review the level and effectiveness of communications activities
via troika meetings [regular management meetings between ESRC
Office staff, Strategic Research Board liaison members and Centre/Programme
Directors] and also through programmes' and centres' annual reports,
where they are asked to set out their dissemination and engagement
strategy.
We do not have any formal sanctions for unsatisfactory performance,
but will discuss these concerns with our investments and consider
appropriate supportive action. A recent example of this is where
one of our centres made a bid for additional funds and was told
that its communications proposals were unsatisfactory and required
improvement before the funding request could be considered.
We also support Centres and Programmes in their engagement
activities in various ways. For instance, we run media training
courses and have developed a "Communications Toolkit"
to promote best practice. We also encourage the sharing and dissemination
of good practice through, for example, regular directors' meetings.
As mentioned above, we have also appointed a number of media fellows
to support specific investments in their dissemination and engagement
activities.
18. What role has the Advanced Institute of Management
played in your knowledge transfer activities? What concrete outcomes
has the centre achieved to date?
The Advanced Institute of Management Research (AIM) was founded
in October 2002 and is jointly funded by ESRC and EPSRC. With
activities at over 34 institutions in the UK, AIM's mission is
to increase significantly the contribution of and future capacity
for world class management research. One of AIM's core objectives
is to engage with practitioners and other users of research within
and beyond the UK as co-producers of knowledge about management.
Work within AIM underpinned the recent productivity seminar referred
to in our submission and was featured in an article in last week's
Financial Times.
AIM has a stakeholder engagement plan. This includes:
— Management Research Forums—twice yearly
events, held in partnership with a third party, aimed at senior
policy makers, practitioners and academics. The purpose is to
debate issues of current management importance. Past forums have
been on topics including "Solving the Skills Gap" and
"Knowledge & Skills Transfer between Universities and
Local Industry".
— Publications from topics arising from these Forums
are produced by the AIM scholars which are aimed at the academic
audience. These publications are now being summarised and translated
into brochures aimed at businesses.
— The first of these has been published on the topic
of Innovation Networks. Publications which are in the pipeline
include "How UK firms can Create More Value?" and "Promising
Practises".
— Conferences aimed at practitioner audiences eg
the forthcoming "Outsourcing and Offshoring of Services in
the UK".
— A book about national competitiveness is currently
being written, for publication next year, which will summarise
the key findings from the Competitiveness Fellows research aimed
at the business community.
— The AIM website gives up-to-date progress of the
Initiative and details of forthcoming events.
19. How much demand from industry is there for your work?
What statistics do you keep on this?
There is considerable demand from industry for our work.
This is evident in our partnerships with a range of private sector
organisations within the CASE (Collaborative Studentships) and
KTP (Knowledge Transfer Partnerships) schemes, other co-funding
arrangements and participation in our user networks such as the
Connect Club. Above all many of our major investments have very
direct working links with industry. Our corporate level data is
not at present as comprehensive as we would wish and we are currently
working on improving this. Particular examples of demand and interest
from industry are:
The Innovative Health Technologies Programme has very close
links with GlaxoSmithKline, including holding regular meetings
and workshops;
Several of the projects under the Teaching and Learning Programme,
such as "Learning as Work: Teaching and Learning Processes
in the Contemporary Work Organisation", have industry links.
In the case of this particular project they include Avon Cosmetics,
the CBI, and Cisco Systems;
A one-day conference event organised by the E-Society Programme
earlier in November was very much industry-oriented. Those attending
included representatives of BT and Yahoo. The conference focused
on research which has explored trust and the internet;
The Centre for Organisation and Innovation has attracted
£1.5 million of co-funding from users. A particular example
of that is the BAE Systems-Rolls Royce University Technology Partnership
(UTP). Co-funding is attached to a research programme whose agenda
is jointly agreed by the sponsoring companies and the academic
researchers;
The Centre for Organisation and Innovation provides advice
and consultancy to Armeg Ltd, BAE Systems, Barclays Bank, Birtley
Engineering, BMW, BP, British Aerospace, British Steel, Caterpillar,
Excel, Engineering Employers Federation, Rolls Royce, Lyons, Unilever,
Shell, Twinings, Rover Group;
The Complex Product Systems Innovation Centre works with
industry through its teaching/training module on managing innovation
in capital goods and systems. Last year they worked with American
Express, Ericsson and several companies working in the built environment
and construction industries. It also works with a number of major
companies in the area of complex information technology systems;
There has been considerable interest in the research that
the UK Longitudinal Studies Centre and the Research Centre on
Micro-social Change do and enable. For example, the expertise
in survey management, coupled with understanding of dynamics within
and between households, have led to British Telecom funding a
specific project led by a team of staff across these two ESRC
centres on "Home On-line Information and Communications Technology
in the Home".
ADMINISTRATION
20. What was the rationale behind the merger of the ESRC
and EPSRC human resource functions in 2003-04? What have the effects
been?
The quinquennial review of the Research Councils in 2000
proposed an increased emphasis on the harmonisation of the administrative
operations of the Councils, including the HR function. ESRC and
EPSRC, although covering diverse scientific areas, were based
at one location in Polaris House, Swindon and employed only research
administrators as neither Council administered Research Institutes
with active scientific staff. Following the devolution of pay
and employment conditions in the mid 1990s both Councils had adopted
a similar 5 Band staff grading system. In this context there was
clear common ground between the Councils to look to establishing
a joint HR function. The Group created took responsibility for
the oversight of the Joint Recruitment Unit (JRU) which provided
a recruitment service for all the Swindon based councils and from
1 November will assume responsibility for AHRB also.
Over a period of years the Councils are looking to realise
some savings on HR costs—already the staffing has been reduced
by 1 Band 5, 1 Band 3 and 1.5 Band 4 posts. The pay structure
between the two Councils has been re-configured and combined from
2003 to suit the needs of both organisations. A programme is in
place in conjunction with the other Swindon based Councils to
harmonise other terms of employment across the Councils. The ESRC/EPSRC
HR Group in its role of oversight of the JRU has been a prime
mover in taking forward an initiative to administer the recruitment
of Band 5 administrators jointly for all the Swindon based Councils
generating substantial savings in advertising and other recruitment
costs. An increase in staff mobility across all the Councils is
gradually taking place and opportunities for combining processes
and encouraging good practice are pursued wherever possible.
21. Why is the cost of processing a grant application rising?
What steps are you taking to ensure that the cost of processing
applications remains as low as possible?
The cost of processing applications has been decreasing steadily
since 2000-01, and was lower in real terms in 2003-04 than for
any year since 1996-97, with the exception of 2002-03. It was
some one-third lower in real terms in 2003-04 than the
average cost between 1996-97 and 2001-02.
Annual figures are however subject to variation determined
by the number, size and complexity of applications in any one
year. As explained in the footnote to the ESRC Operating Plan
2004-05 the increase in 2003-04 over 2002-03 (but not over any
other year) was largely due to a slightly lower number of applications
being processed, but these being of a more complex nature, involving
substantially the commissioning of cross-Council programmes in
the areas of rural economy, sustainable energy, and stem cells.
ESRC pays close attention to the cost of processing applications
and seeks to streamline and minimise costs wherever possible.
This includes using electronic application processes. During 2004-05
it is also, with other Councils, seeking to minimise the information
which it requires to review. It has very streamlined proposals
for applications below £45,000, giving decisions within 8-14
weeks. Procedures for cross-Council programmes and for international
comparative applications, which can be particularly costly, are
currently being reviewed to achieve appropriate economies wherever
possible.
At the same time ESRC must ensure that the application review
process is reasonably thorough, especially as high quality applications
at the margin cannot be funded. Systems must be reasonably robust
to make appropriate distinctions. Undue economy in the reviewing
process could lead to less good scientific decisions, which would
reduce value-for-money, and must be avoided.
22. Do you fund researchers who are not UK nationals? Why/why
not?
Yes, in common with the other Research Councils we do fund
researchers who are not UK nationals. Our aim is to fund excellent
research at UK institutions; nationality of the researcher is
not a factor in this.
FUTURE CHALLENGES
23. Which areas of social science have been particularly
affected by problems with the RAE? To what extent have these problems
been resolved by the plans for the 2008 RAE? What further improvements
need to made? How effectively are the Research Councils working
together to address these issues?
As we indicated in out initial submission, we believe that
those areas whose output is particularly relevant to policy and
professional practice, and activities geared towards engagement
with the non-academic users of research, have been disadvantaged
by previous RAE rounds. In the context of work relevant to professional
practice we have commissioned a good practice review by Professor
John Furlong of the Department of Educational Studies at the University
of Oxford to inform this debate. We intend to work closely with
the funding councils to address these concerns, particularly over
the coming year as the individual panels develop their assessment
criteria. Issues to consider here will include giving greater
weighting to outputs other than articles in refereed journals
and the number and role of non-academic members of particular
subject panels.
The research councils have worked together closely in identifying
and raising these issues and will continue to do so. In particular
we will continue to emphasise the importance of not disadvantaging
interdisciplinary work and will seek to ensure that the incentives
created by the RAE are not in tension with the requirements of
the research councils. In this respect we believe it is important
that the perceptions and expectations of the research community
are clearly addressed well in advance of 2008.
24. How are you addressing the need to improve the quantitative
and linguistic skills of social scientists who are already established
researchers? Is there a demand from the research community for
ongoing training in these areas?
The ESRC supports a number of initiatives which aim to improve
the quantitative skills of social scientists who are already established
researchers. These include:
The ESRC Centre for Applied Social Surveys, which develops
and runs a series of modular courses in applied social survey
methods and produces associated course materials on the design
and conduct of surveys. Between 2000 and 2004 the Centre provided
36 courses totalling 105 teaching days. The number of participants
is normally limited to around 20 per course. The majority of the
courses have waiting lists and are regularly oversubscribed.
The Research Methods Programme's (RMP) principal aim is to
develop quantitative and qualitative methods within the context
of substantive research. It is also geared towards the effective
dissemination of good practice through a range of related training
activities. Many of the 38 projects funded under the programme
are now developing and running training courses. The indications
to date are that most of the courses have been hugely oversubscribed
with a lot of demand for additional provision. For example the
Royal Economic Society Easter School in Econometrics has typically
had 90 applications for 20 funded places at the School.
The recent ESRC Research Methods Festival, which provided
an opportunity for researchers to explore and discuss new methods,
was also heavily oversubscribed despite providing places for 600
participants. It is planned to hold this event again in 2006.
Through the RMP the Council also makes available 50 training bursaries
a year (for up to £1,000) to enable staff in the UK engaged
in teaching research methods and supervising research students
and contract researchers to undertake training courses to update
their skills.
The new £6.5 million National Centre for Research Methods
will build on the work of the RMP and will provide a focal point
for an integrated programme aimed at promoting a step change in
the quality and range of methodological skills and techniques
used by the UK Social Science community. We will shortly be announcing
the funding of six Centre Nodes which will be responsible for
delivering the Centre's training and capacity programme.
The development of the call for the Centre's Nodes was informed
by a national consultation exercise. Respondents to this and to
our broader consultation on future priorities stressed the need
for more training in research methods and for ongoing training
throughout researchers' careers. In response to this the Council
will announce in early 2005 a new Researcher Development Initiative
which will focus on the provision of both generic and subject
specific training at intermediate and advanced levels, building
on the core provision at the postgraduate level.
In terms of language training we do of course provide additional
time and funding for this at doctoral level and are currently
developing a new initiative with HEFCE to provide training in
Arabic, Chinese and Japanese. At the level of the established
researcher we do not at present have any specific schemes but
this is something we will be looking at closely in partnership
with the funding councils and the institutions themselves.
November 2004
| 
