APPENDIX 16
Memorandum from Professor Ian Peterson,
Coventry University
The Impact of HEFCE's research funding formula,
as applied to Research Assessment Exercise ratings, on the financial
viability of university science departments.
The research funding formula is proving to be
extremely harmful, both in the university at which I held my Chair
and in many universities known to me. I was taken on to do research,
as a result of my good publication record (now over 120 publications,
the vast majority in rated refereed journals, and well cited).
In the last RAE, the Unit of Assessment of which I was a part
managed to improve its rating by one point, to which improvement
I made a major contribution. This improvement was achieved by
great effort, in spite of a continuous loss of support staff over
the period covered by the exercise. Instead of being a matter
for congratulation, the improved research rating led within months
to swingeing (40%) cuts, justified by the poor financial position
of the school. In fact, in spite of the improved rating, the income
brought in by the RAE was substantially reduced compared to the
previous one. Other Units of Assessment were even more severely
affected. The action taken in 1992 did not stop the rot, and further
savage staff cuts are currently on the agenda.
This may appear anecdotal, but I have heard
many similar stories from colleagues all over the UK. As a result
of the level of research funding provided by the UK Government,
many Vice-Chancellors are deciding that research in areas with
special equipment needs, particularly the natural sciences, is
not financially viable. This situation was highlighted by the
recent decision at Exeter University to close the Chemistry Department.
The events at Exeter were publicised by the efforts of Prof. Kroto,
who as a Nobel prize winner is in a position to go public without
prejudicing his employment prospects. However, Exeter is by far
from being the only example, and Physics is also severely affected.
Point 2: The desirability of increasing the
concentration of research in a small number of university departments,
and the consequences of such a trend:
Incremental scientific advances can be made
by large groups following agreed protocols approved by the funding
committees. However, I would stress to the Committee that unexpected
fundamental discoveries, of the sort for which the UK has in the
past had a great reputation, are very often not made in this way.
No matter how highly rated by expert panels, fewer research groups
means a smaller chance of making discoveries, and the country
will suffer a loss of capability.
Over the last few years, we have seen whole
departments sacked because their research rating, though good,
was not excellent. This is breeding a situation where all research
is being conducted on "bandwagon" topics meeting the
approval of funding bodies. The Committee must be aware that such
topics are not guaranteed of success or significance. Moreover
it is breeding an attitude where research is driven by the necessity
of bringing in money rather than a love of the subject. Risky
research, following up hunches, is being strongly discouraged.
Point 3: The implications for University Science
teaching of changes in the weightings given to science subjects
in the teaching funding formula.
I believe that the capitation weighting in the
UK for undergraduate teaching of Physics and Chemistry is 1.7
times that of subjects requiring no special equipment, and that
this is considerably lower than that in other European countries.
Science subjects require laboratories, technicians and infrastructure
support. This is expensive because hands-on training with up-to-date
equipment is essential for these subjects with their relevance
to manufacturing industry. The trained personnel who come out
from these courses are able to contribute to the balance of trade
in a way that service industries cannot.
The steady loss of teaching and support personnel
in science subjects at my former University has been constantly
justified by the poor financial position of the school. The inadequacy
of the level of provision by the Government across the board,
not necessarily just in science subjects, was also confirmed last
year by the debate on top-up fees. There has been a steady trend,
away from meaty traditional subjects valid for a whole spectrum
of future employments, to lightweight specialist courses chosen
for their superficial attractiveness to students, and with no
connection to future employment prospects, eg sports science and
forensics.
Point 4: The optimal balance between teaching
and research provision in universities, giving particular consideration
to the desirability and financial viability of teaching-only science
departments.
There always have been colleges of higher education
of this sort, and it is recognised that the quality of their teaching
is not as good. Effectively, it is a continuation of secondary
schooling. The factors involved are intangible. Some boil down
to the fact that the teaching staff are not conversant with the
latest state of the art, nor are they aware of subtleties of interpretation.
Others concern the consequent lack of training of research skills.
Research projects are only possible if there is state-of-the-art
apparatus already in the laboratory for research usage, and if
the undergraduates can receive practical assistance from postgraduate
and postdoctoral researchers who are there to undertake research.
Research projects give training in how to approach open-ended
problems, devise a means to solve the various unexpected problems
which arise, and assess the value of data obtained. The resulting
ability to handle real-world problems as well as the usual textbook
questions benefits the student in whatever walk of life they may
end up in, even if it is not in science.
Point 5: The importance of maintaining a regional
capacity in university science teaching and research.
This point overlaps Points 2 and 4.
Point 6: The extent to which government should
intervene to ensure continuing provision of subjects of strategic
national or regional importance, and the mechanisms it should
use for this purpose.
Virtually all higher education funding in this
country originates from the Government. Since HEFCE controls the
quotas of students per subject, and controls the amount of funding
per student per subject, then the only sanction open to a Vice-Chancellor
is to alter the mix of courses on offer, most often by closing
courses down. Vice-Chancellors are held responsible for the finances
of their institution, but there are no sanctions for failing on
any wider intellectual or macroeconomic issues of importance to
the country as a whole. It is therefore essential that government
intervenes to direct the use of resources. It is surprising that
a country of 60 million inhabitants could end up with only 20
(if that becomes the number) of good academic research units in
key natural sciences, and that we cannot support the teaching
of eg 3,000 new students in chemistry per year, yet this appears
to be the case. If it is true that higher education is being effectively
funded then why is this not visible on the ground (ie teaching
resources)? Where is the funding going? If the provision of higher
education is being expanded to give 50% of the population chances
for a life-enhancing experience, why are traditional intellectually-challenging
courses being closed down and replaced by light-weight ones without
realistic employment prospects?
I would be delighted if the Committee could
address possible solutions. One possibility is that an independent
panel be set up to adjudicate on course closures and other changes
in educational provision. A university planning to close courses
would need to lay the reasons before this panel. If nothing else
this would help to clarify matters for those involved. At my former
institution it is not clear that the balance of costs and benefits
of science teaching has been properly considered. The contribution
of science to university patents and "third strand"
activities is notable. No doubt there are other extenuating issues
for courses at other institutions.
An independent panel would be able to take a
national strategic view. At present it seems that Vice-Chancellors
are being encouraged to take decisions based on short-term financial
considerations. Decisions as to what is taught are also being
put in the hands of people with no experience or overview, and
without consideration of long term national benefit. This situation
needs urgently to be redressed. Damage is being done, and the
longer corrective action is put off, the longer it will take to
recover.
January 2005
| 
