APPENDIX 56
Memorandum from the Open University
The Open University welcomes the opportunity
to respond to the Science and Technology Committee questions.
The Open University's Science Faculty has an annual budget of
approx. £45M, teaching in 2003/04 in excess of 30,000 undergraduate
students, approximately 700 taught higher degree students and
750 postgraduate research students, representing about one fifth
of the total Open University student population. In UK HE terms,
The Open University accounts for 55% of all part-time Biological
Science undergraduates and 72% of all part-time Physical Sciences
undergraduates (HESA data 2002/3). As well as dominating part-time
Science provision this is a major contribution to Science higher
education in general
Science students can study individual courses,
or follow degree programmes in Natural Sciences, Molecular Sciences,
Geosciences, Physical Sciences or a range of combined awards.
The first comment to make is about the assumption
that all Science is the same. Where the particular Science does
not need a large lab infrastructure (eg theoretical Physics and
possibly some aspects of Earth Sciences) there is everything to
be gained by continuing to support small groups of individuals
rather than looking for concentrations. However it is clear that
in the case of Chemistry and Biological Sciences research there
is a step function in the provision of laboratories where there
is clear advantage in concentrating groups of researchers around
the provision of the highest quality of laboratory infrastructure.
The University's Science Faculty offers the
following evidence for the Committee:
1. The impact of HEFCE's research funding
formulae, as applied to RAE ratings, on the financial viability
of university science departments.
The change of the funding formula has been an
important contributory factor in the closure of some departments.
The funding changes, more detailed accounting procedures and introduction
of full economic costing are forcing universities to consider
the viability of departments. The consequences of grade 4 funding
led Exeter, for example, to close its Chemistry department. Whilst
the ability of large research organisations to generate major
research outputs is clear, it is perhaps a surprise that just
as online resources are increasingly becoming available to support
widely distributed networks of isolated researchers, the ability
of such academics to continue to research is threatened. A policy
that limits research to a few large institutions is not only detrimental
to research, it also threatens to impact negatively on teaching.
Synergy between research and teaching produces an outcome substantially
greater than its parts. Small departments where research is no
longer funded may not be able to teach science as effectively
as those with a strong culture of research. However the funding
formulae are not the whole problem, and reduced student numbers
have also been an important factor in determining financial viability
of departments. Indeed the introduction of SRIF to support infrastructure
has been a positive development.
2. The desirability of increasing the concentration
of research in a small number of university departments, and the
consequences of such a trend.
There is no denying that the large research-based
departments are powerhouses of endeavour. The issue here is not
so much about a smaller number of University departments, but
the implication that research is concentrated in a smaller number
of universities. It is not reasonable to expect that every University
should teach/research in every subject. Neither is it sensible
to jeopardise very highly regarded science research undertaken
by a particular research group in a smaller department by withdrawing
funding because the rest of the science research at that University
is only of national excellence.
3. The implications for university science
teaching of changes in the weightings given to science subjects
in the teaching funding formula.
The experience of the Open University is that
the changes have led to a reduction in teaching resource of £2
million. If the effect of the changes is to make some areas of
science became uneconomic to teach, the impact on the remaining
science areas would be devastating. The missing subjects would
still need to be taught as they underpin interdisciplinary and
other more "fashionable" areas. Science is expensive
to teach (whether face to face or at a distance) because of its
very nature, as a subject based in experimental work. Sophisticated
multimedia can be used to help explain conceptually difficult
ideas and take the place of some practical and field work, but
these skills are more complex and therefore expensive to teach
than most other subjects.
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.
The links between Teaching and Research and
vice versa (so-called synergy) are significant and give life to
the subject. That is important because people need to be enthused
to study and enthused to teach. The two do feed off each other
and there are numerous examples in the science carried on at The
Open University. The University gave a specific example in its
response to the HE White Paper The Future of Higher Education
(extract attached together with case study as annex A and B).
Our most innovative courses have often developed from research
interests and co-publishing of some of our course materials would
have been unlikely if it derived from a teaching-only department.
The obvious response here is that while there is no problem in
principle with having teaching-only departments, the practicality
is with the staffing of them. Given the current training of scientists
and the role of research in that, it is unreasonable to expect
newly-appointed staff to cease what they have spent many years
struggling to maintain—that is, their research. The solution
may be for some staff to move at some point in their career to
teaching-only contracts—especially it they are good at it
(and talent in this aspect should be explicitly recognised). However
all academic staff should be expected to contribute to teaching
(it is after all the core business) but not all to the same extent.
Brian White's early day motion (EDM 290) recognises
the benefits that research brings to students. It is not coincidental
that this motion was put just two weeks after his participation
in the Royal Society's MP/Scientist Pairing Scheme to improve
communications between parliamentarians and academics. To produce
a lasting influence on policy, academics have continually to make
clear to parliamentarians the importance of the teaching and the
research they do.
Charles Clarke, when he was Secretary of State
for Education and Skills, said that he wanted to see the days
of poor quality teaching become a thing of the past. The way to
achieve that is not by artificially separating research from teaching,
rather it is by building on their mutually supportive relationship.
5. The importance of maintaining a regional
capacity in university science teaching and research.
The increasing cost of university courses means
that there is more pressure on students to stay at home. The Open
University is the only nationwide provider for science HE and
it has a strong regional presence. There have been several expressions
of interest from local universities in offers of collaboration
with the Open University, whereby crucial science subjects can
still be delivered in all areas of the country, and this is a
matter we are discussing with HEFCE. This is important not just
for the students located in the regions where otherwise there
is no provision for the science they need, but also for the regionally
based industries which rely on well educated graduates in science.
The Open University is able to look beyond regional
boundaries, because the university provides a model for supporting
science education at a national level, through its distinctive
capability to deliver high quality teaching materials and support
services to part-time students. The diverse part-time student
population includes many undertaking further training in the context
of their employment in the commercial world. Moreover, open entry
systems on The Open University model for undergraduate students
are particularly effective at drawing lower participatory groups
into the higher education system (eg students with physical and
mental disabilities, women into science and engineering).
6. The extent to which the Government should
intervene to ensure continuing provision of subjects of national
or regional importance; and the mechanisms it should use for this
purpose.
The problem is that market forces have no way
of supporting things which are not currently in demand but which
may be again in the future. Universities have a role as the keeper
and nurturer of knowledge for future generations. It is very much
the role of Government to ensure that sufficient expertise is
maintained in subjects which are not of to the highest priority
for the average 18 year old. Also, it is not enough to maintain
only those subjects currently thought to be of national importance
"future proofing" is like the protection of the Amazon
rainforest; you need to preserve something of everything even
though you do not currently understand its true importance.
An example comes from the Earth Sciences—an
increasingly broad subject(s) area encompassing the whole of the
Earth and its systems (Earth Systems Science). NERC's stated aim,
advancing the knowledge of planet Earth as a complex interacting
system, covers the full range of atmospheric, earth, terrestrial
and aquatic sciences from the depths of the oceans to the upper
atmosphere (and in The Open University's case the creation of
CEPSAR—Centre for Earth, Planetary, Space and Astronomical
Research) aims to include planetary science and astronomical research
as well). Earth science (geoscience) is important economically
(energy, water, mineral resources) and socially (climate change,
pollution, natural disasters). The recent earthquake and tsunami
in SE Asia serve to emphasise this. Geology as a separate subject
is not widely taught in schools and so it is particularly important
that as a subject area we communicate well with the public. Earth
Science in the UK is now a relatively small grouping (since the
Oxburgh report—Dundee, Newcastle, Hull, Sheffield, Nottingham,
Swansea, Exeter, Queens Belfast, Reading, Luton have closed their
Departments; Glasgow & Strathclyde and Birmingham & Aston
have amalgamated; others may yet close). History tells us that
an effective science infrastructure does contribute to the national
wellbeing. In the 1920s and '30s, when it was clear that the UK
science base was uncoordinated, government funding for science
took the form of the DISR. After WWII the network of government
funded laboratories and grant programmes in the UK, US, and elsewhere
was heavily influenced by defence agendas. A better reason to
invest in science is provision of undergraduate, postgraduate
and life long training. To quote from the Treasury's "Science
& innovation investment framework 2004-14" report, "A
highly skilled, diverse workforce will contribute to business
productivity and innovation, enabling UK businesses to exploit
fully new technologies and scientific discoveries, achieve world-class
standards and compete globally."
January 2005
| 
