Annex A
EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
SOCIETY
We are writing as Hon Secretary and President
of the Experimental Psychology Society in response to your call
for evidence to the Science and Technology Committee's Inquiry
into strategic science provision in English universities.
Briefly, The EPS was founded in 1946. Its role
is to facilitate research in experimental psychology, and scientific
communication among experimental psychologists and those working
in cognate fields. As such, we regularly liaise with the research
councils on issues of science funding in the UK. The EPS is the
foremost society for the scientific study of Psychology (with
20 members that are also Fellows of the Royal Society, and a further
seven that are Fellows of the British Academy); it has an active
membership of around 650, with members in mainland Europe and
elsewhere overseas, including the US. Membership is restricted
to scientists with a proven ability in Experimental Psychology
(they must have published their work in a major peer-reviewed
journal and have presented their work to the Society at one of
its meetings). More information about the EPS and its history
can be found at http://www.eps.ac.uk. The EPS holds regular scientific
meetings, three times a year, at which members and guests present
their work; it publishes the Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology and other occasional publications. It sponsors scientific
workshops on special topics, and awards grants and prizes to facilitate
postdoctoral, postgraduate and undergraduate research. The Bartlett
Lecturer, chosen annually by the Society, is recognized as one
of the major intellectual awards in Psychology.
We believe that the provision of adequate resourcing
is particularly germane in respect of Psychology, given that it
is the largest scientific discipline as measured in undergraduate
numbers, and ranks third overall. Also noteworthy is that, as
a science, it attracts a greater proportion of women than do other
scientific disciplines. It is also the case that, as a general
scientific degree course, it offers significant transferable skills
and given the numbers of students obtaining these skills, it no
doubt has a significant impact on the graduate workforce and economy
of this country.
Below are brief comments on the 5 points for
which you are requesting evidence:
The impact of HEFCE's research funding formulae,
as applied to Research Assessment Exercise ratings, on the financial
viability of university science departments
We believe that it is essential to fund excellence
in science departments, and that it is right that where excellence
exists it should be supported. We are concerned, however, that
the funding formula has now become overly weighted towards the
departments rated 5 or 5*, and departments that achieve national
excellence and are awarded a 4 receive disproportionately low
income on this stream. This in turn impacts on the ability to
train the future research scientists that will sustain both the
future science base and the future economy of this country.
The desirability of increasing the concentration
of research in a small number of university departments, and the
consequences of such a trend
It is true that there are certain sectors in
which large groups are required in order to enable scientific
research. This is true in aspects of genetic research, medical
research, space exploration, and so on. However, much of science
is due to the endeavours of individuals working in small teams,
with perhaps just one principal investigator aided by a research
fellow and/or graduate student. In these cases, a well-funded
department provides an infrastructure and ethos that is certainly
beneficial. But to deny a talented individual researcher support
because he or she happens to work in a university department that
has not been deemed a "centre of excellence" is to impede
the entrepreneurial spirit that pervades scientific investigation.
We believe a balance can, and should, be found between catering
for efficient research infrastructures as well as catering for
the individual scientist. In respect of the consequences for teaching,
we believe that concentrating top researchers in just a few university
departments would seriously impact on the quality of teaching
that would be afforded to the undergraduate and postgraduate populations,
with consequent implications for the research base of this country.
The implications for university science teaching
of changes in the weightings given to science subjects in the
teaching funding formula
We are particularly concerned, given changes
in the weightings given to Psychology in particular in the teaching
funding formula, that university income "generated"
by the large numbers of Psychology undergraduates is no longer
sufficient to support the teaching of science subjects to the
levels needed to support a proper education based on quantitative
experimental approaches. You may know that HEFCE rebanded Psychology
teaching recently, in a way which will shift funds away from many
of our best Departments and therefore cause harm to initiatives
in neuroscience, brain imaging, behaviour genetics and other high-cost
areas. To be taught as a science, psychology requires intensive
laboratory practical courses, computer courses, and training in
statistical methods. In Year 3 of a typical course, each student
undertakes an individually supervised research project that takes
up many contact hours with the HEFCE-funded faculty member responsible
for that student. Without adequate science-based funding, we are
in danger of no longer being able to provide the intensity of
practical scientific teaching, and the associated transferable
skills, that this country's economy has enjoyed to-date. Although
in principle the change in the weighting may not significantly
change the teaching funding to individual institutions, we believe
that the rebanding of Psychology sends a signal to universities
that they need not invest in Psychology training to the extent
that they once did.
The optimal balance between teaching and research
provision in universities, giving particular consideration to
the desirability and financial viability of teaching-only science
departments
We see nothing wrong in teaching-only science
departments, and indeed, Polytechnics, as they once were, provided
an enormously fruitful science base through what were often teaching-only
science departments. However, given that research-only science
departments are unlikely to be financially viable, a balance must
be struck in research-active departments between support for nationally
and internationally recognized research, and support for teaching.
There has undoubtedly been an increase in teaching and associated
administration for research-active HEFCE-funded faculty, and we
view this as an impediment to the high quality research that is
in danger of no longer being the hallmark of the UK University
system.
The importance of maintaining a regional capacity
in university science teaching and research
We believe that regional capacity in science
teaching and research is essential if we are to attract prospective
scientists from different social and cultural communities within
the UK. A danger inherent in centralizing science teaching and
research in a few centres of excellence, or in a few geographical
areas, is the attribution of elitism to scientific endeavour,
and this would undoubtedly put off many of the population who
may otherwise go on to become the leading scientists of the future.
Indeed, scientific diversity, without which science cannot evolve
and advance, would suffer were there not also geographical diversity.
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.
It is unclear whether the Government should
intervene in light of mechanisms already in place via HEFCE funding.
We believe, however, that there has been a tendency to base formula
funding of particular subjects on data which do not accurately
reflect the true cost of teaching students in a particular subject
or within a particular department. Whilst it is appropriate that
HEFCE continue to manage funding provision of different subjects,
we would urge HEFCE to encourage the collection of data which
do more adequately reflect the true teaching cost. This disparity,
between actual cost and the costs on which formula funding are
based, is particularly noticeable in the case of the teaching
of science subjects, and is certainly the case with our own subject,
Psychology (and see our response in relation to the question on
science subjects and the teaching funding formula).
Professor Gerry Altmann, Hon Secretary
Professor Andy Young, President
|
