APPENDIX 14
Memorandum from Professor Grierson, University
of Nottingham
— The impact of HEFCE's research funding
formulae, as applied to Research Assessment Exercise ratings,
on the financial viability of university science departments;
The step changes in funding that occur between
grades has had a significant impact for those units that did not
achieve the highest ratings. We have been particularly concerned
that, in the last exercise, the assessment was uneven across different
areas of science and engineering. In particular, we consider that
the RAE ratings had a damaging effect on key medical areas which
are disproportionate to the judgements that were being made about
research quality in these areas. There has also been a distorting
and harmful effect, especially on areas of research that are applied,
interdisciplinary, innovative, or specialised. RAE has driven
some Departments towards pure, single-subject, orthodox, mainstream
research, to the detriment of other exciting and useful possibilities.
— The desirability of increasing the
concentration of research in a small number of university departments,
and the consequences of such a trend;
This is a complex issue since greater concentration
in fewer departments may in the longer term risk reducing the
national science and innovation capacity even though critical
mass is often necessary for the UK to have research groups which
can sustain world-class competitiveness in an area. It would be
valuable for some high-tech disciplines with costly physical resources,
but could be a damaging and arbitrary constraint on other subjects
which could prevent the strongest seeds from sprouting where they
fall. It is vital that concentration is targeted at those universities
and departments that can demonstrate enterprise and imagination
in developing new research, encourage interdisciplinary working,
and are innovative in dissemination, technology transfer and exploiting
the outcomes of research. Further concentration in universities
or departments that do not have the culture and capacity to innovate,
however good the current quality of their research, may be counterproductive.
— The implications for university science
teaching of changes in the weightings given to science subjects
in the teaching funding formula;
Any changes which reduce the weightings given
to science subjects will have a detrimental effect on these areas.
Given that university budgetary models usually reflect the national
funding model, it will reduce income levels available for that
subject. This means not only less for teaching but also puts pressure
on recruitment and promotion budgets leading to a spiral of decline
in demand for the subjects. This can be very costly to address
at a later stage through special incentives and other schemes,
to say nothing of the cost of lost opportunities.
— The optimal balance between teaching
and research provision in universities, giving particular consideration
to the desirability and financial viability of teaching-only science
departments;
In our view only research active units can credibly
reach world class levels of knowledge dissemination. Units will
not be recognised for teaching alone at this level. Furthermore,
there are synergies between teaching and research when an optimal
balance is achieved. Therefore, we believe that teaching-only
science departments are not desirable without compromising on
quality and if they emerge, should be related to specific roles.
Removing research capacity from departments by shutting off funding
may mean fewer possibilities for those departments to compete
globally.
— The importance of maintaining a regional
capacity in university science teaching and research;
We believe that it is important to maintain
a regional capacity in university science teaching and research
providing that this capacity exceeds a quality threshold. In some
areas, specific investment may be required to ensure this happens.
The RDAs should be encouraged further to work closely with universities
to ensure that this capacity is developed. We see the development
of a new vet school at the University as precisely the kind of
initiative where a partnership approach can deliver high quality
research and teaching capacity. However, we can see no benefit
in maintaining sub-standard capacity.
— The extent to which the Government
should intervene to ensure continuing provision of subjects of
strategic national or regional importance; and the mechanisms
it should use for this purpose.
If the market alone dictates how HE is configured,
less popular subjects will continue to be at risk (as evidenced
by recent closure decisions). Measures to invest in less popular
departments, while challenging them to be innovative and imaginative,
working with industry and RDA partners, in addressing their lack
of popularity, must be considered if the UK is to retain a broad-based
science portfolio. In particular, it is vital to support the more
fundamental science and engineering disciplines which are essential
to tackle the major research challenges of the 21st Century. Mechanisms
should range from stimulating staff and student demand through
incentives such as "golden hellos" and special allowances
to major schemes such as the EPSRC's Science and Innovation Awards
which encourage a partnership approach to address the issues in
a coordinated and holistic way. The importance of the national
profile of science and engineering in public, political, and educational
life of the nation should be enhanced and the reward system improved
in order for these areas to continue to attract young people.
If teaching provision in schools is inadequate and/or uninspired,
there is little prospect of achieving this.
January 2005
|
