Government Response
Introduction
The Office of Science and Technology (OST) and the
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) welcome the report
and its conclusion that ESRC is a well-run Research Council. A
number of the recommendations made in the report were already
under consideration by the ESRC. However, the implementation of
some of these will depend on the outcome of the Spending Review
allocations and on decisions to be made by the ESRC Council in
April 2005. The Government notes that Research Councils UK (RCUK)
will look at the recommendations from the Committee's reports
on the work of all the Research Councils and consider the opportunities
for the further sharing of ideas and best practice between Councils.
The Government's response to the Committee's individual
recommendations is set out below. Where recommendations were plainly
addressed to the ESRC and the Government has no role in the matters
raised, the response is the ESRC's.
Strategy and Mission
1. The positive feedback from the social science
community about the way in which ESRC conducted the consultation
on its new strategic framework is a credit to the Council. ESRC
needs to build on this good work by continuing to engage with
its community in its forward planning. (Paragraph 11)
The Government welcomes the Committee's recognition
of the value of ESRC's consultation. ESRC intend to conduct regular
consultation exercises on a similar basis in future.
2. It is encouraging that ESRC is building strong
relationships with a wide range of Government Departments. We
believe that this interaction should strengthen the quality of
policy making in these Departments. We nevertheless urge ESRC
to exercise caution to ensure that its work programme does not
become overly focused on meeting Government priorities at the
expense of giving researchers with strong proposals the freedom
to pursue issues that they believe are important. (Paragraph 15)
ESRC will continue to strive to maintain a balance
between funding work of national priority and being responsive
to opportunities for driving forward science and knowledge, including
the priorities of the academic community. However, these two categories
are, of course, not mutually exclusive and there is high demand
for funding through those directed programmes that address policy
issues and responsive mode. ESRC would also argue that none of
the research it funds is solely about 'meeting government priorities'.
Much of it is indeed concerned with addressing key policy areas
but that is always underpinned by high scientific quality.
The Government agrees that access to scientific evidence
for policy making is very important in contributing to the development
of policy by Government Departments. Government Departments also
conduct and commission social and economic research and seek to
ensure that there is no duplication with the research commissioned
by others.
3. In view of ESRC's interest in, and the Government's
stated commitment to, evidence-based policy making, we believe
that there would be significant merit in ESRC conducting periodic
appraisals of the extent to which specific Government policies
in areas within ESRC's remit are based on sound evidence. This
would remind Government of its commitment to evidence-based policy
making and would also be a useful indicator of the relevance and
value of ESRC-sponsored research. (Paragraph 16)
The Chief Scientific Advisor has been carrying out
assessments of the science and innovation strategies of Government
Departments to ensure that they meet the needs of evidence-based
policy. In the light of this work we do not think it would be
productive to ask the ESRC to duplicate it.
4. We encourage ESRC to ensure that research of
relevance is disseminated widely to the Regional Development Agencies
and advise Regional Development Agencies to make more use of ESRC
expertise in planning and conducting research to underpin policy
making. (Paragraph 17)
The ESRC has already begun to strengthen links with
the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). An example of the increased
interaction with regional bodies is the conference that ESRC held
in November in association with the Association of Regional Observatories
on 'Regional Policy', which was attended by 200 delegates from
RDAs, central and local government and other key policymakers,
and on which positive feedback was received. ESRC is now developing
further activity that builds on the success of the conference
and provides the research evidence and knowledge that inform the
regions and brings together those developing policy at both national
and regional levels.
Government policy requires the RDAs to develop a
strong evidence base for their policies and plans, from whatever
appropriate source. Where ESRC commissioned research anticipates
and reflects the needs of the RDAs, and is thus relevant, timely
and appropriately disseminated, then it should be taken into account.
This will be reflected in revised Guidance
to the RDAs on the Regional Economic Strategies which the Government
will issue shortly.
This underlines the need for a comprehensive and high quality
evidence base to underpin the RES. It also draws attention to
the need to work closely with Government departments, agencies
and NDPBs, including making effective use of relevant national
resources and sources of evidence.
5. ESRC has a remit to fund a broad portfolio
of research and to support UK researchers in carrying out work
of world standing and relevance. We therefore welcome ESRC's increasing
willingness to fund social science of global rather than just
European significance. (Paragraph 19)
ESRC has always been committed to funding work with
a global non-European focus but acknowledges that it needs to
ensure that this is made more explicit. ESRC expects to announce
shortly a jointly-funded responsive mode scheme with the Department
for International Development (DFID), which would be administered
by ESRC but would be in DFID's areas of interest. We hope that
this will enhance the global impact of UK social science research
on development through new work in this area. ESRC is also actively
pursuing possible collaborations with other European and non-European
partners which would enable teams of researchers in different
countries to apply for funding.
Support for Research
6. ESRC's 2:1 ratio of directed: responsive mode
funding is out of step with other Research Councils and is unpopular
with its research community. We recommend that ESRC respond without
delay to the calls from its community to increase significantly
the proportion of responsive mode funding. (Paragraph 21)
ESRC is presently considering, in the context of
developing its Delivery Plan 2005-08, an increase in the proportion
of funding for responsive mode schemes. ESRC does not regard the
directed and responsive modes as separate silos but as part of
a spectrum of funding opportunities. For instance, most of ESRC's
research programmes are responsive competitions within a broadly
defined subject area and the research centres competition this
year was open to proposals in any area of social science. In addition,
the categorisation of responsive and directed mode awards is not
the same across all Councils and thus a direct comparison of the
ratio of spend is difficult to carry out.
7. ESRC should increase the funding available
for responsive mode applications by reducing the size of its contingent
of Research Centres. In addition, ESRC needs to consider whether
a shorter time frame, such as five years, for Research Centre
funding would give better value for money. (Paragraph 26)
ESRC will consider this within the context of its
overall portfolio rather than just focusing on centres. However,
centres are designed to achieve specific objectives and research
outcomes which arise from large-scale, long-term funding and could
not be so easily achieved through alternative mechanisms. ESRC
regard Research Centres as providing excellent value for money,
not only in producing high quality research output, but also in
playing a significant role in meeting other ESRC objectives in
training researchers and dissemination/transfer of knowledge.
A shorter time period would take away the career development opportunities
which the Centres offer. It might also reduce the impact these
have on both scientific development and contributions to policy,
in such areas as social exclusion, demographic and social change,
public expenditure policy, economic performance, economic behaviour,
globalisation, and innovation; all of which require long term
study. We would highlight, for example, the contribution of the
"Centre for Economic Performance" to Government thinking
about productivity and that of the "Centre for Business Research"
on the functioning of the firm.
8. We are pleased to find that ESRC is attempting
to tackle the low success rates for responsive mode grant applications
by managing demand and improving the quality of applications.
ESRC must now significantly enhance the funding available for
responsive mode grants. Until it does so, overall success rates
are unlikely to improve significantly. (Paragraph 29)
ESRC welcomes the Committee's recognition of the
efforts it is making to tackle low success rates. But see also
response to Recommendation 6 above.
9. It is not sufficient that ESRC is content with
its procedures for assessing interdisciplinary applications: the
research community must also be convinced that these applications
will be given proper consideration. If this does not happen, the
perceived lack of a level playing field will act as a disincentive
for researchers to submit interdisciplinary applications, or indeed
to engage in interdisciplinary research. (Paragraph 31)
ESRC is committed to communicating its policies widely
throughout the research community so as to ensure it minimises
any misperceptions. ESRC is increasingly encouraging researchers
to engage in interdisciplinary work, particularly through the
range of cross-Council initiatives developed in the last few years.
ESRC's Research Grants Board is also considering how it can stimulate
and support further responsive-mode research which straddles scientific
and Research Council boundaries. ESRC believes that it already
provides considerable support to interdisciplinary work. 527 of
ESRC's awards current in 2003-4 (representing expenditure of £16
million) involved more than one social science discipline, and
188 awards (with expenditure of £7.2 million in 2003-4) were
part of cross-Council initiatives.
The Government agrees that it is important that interdisciplinary
applications are appropriately assessed and that this is seen
to be done. After the implementation of full economic costing
in September 2005, the RCUK Research and Development Group will
review the effectiveness of Councils' processes for handling interdisciplinary
research proposals, particularly those which straddle Council
boundaries. Councils, through the Research and Development Group,
will also be sharing information and good practice on training
peer reviewers to assess interdisciplinary and risky proposals.
10. The impact of the move towards full economic
costs on grant application success rates needs to be carefully
monitored at a cross-Council level. (Paragraph 32)
The Research Councils are continuing to work towards
ensuring the efficient implementation of the new funding system.
It has been agreed at Ministerial level that a small
number of measures will be identified to enable the impact of
full economic cost (FEC) to be monitored and reported to inform
decision making. Research Councils have agreed to collect and
report data on a consistent and regular basis in order to redress
any concerns that the move to funding of projects on a FEC basis
could perturb the current balance of Research Council funding
of research in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). In summary
this will cover:
- Costs of academic time, included
by HEIs under FEC, will be compared with the pre-FEC baseline,
at individual Council and RCUK level.
- OST and RCUK are clear that the volume of research
supported by the Research Councils in HEIs should neither increase
nor decrease as a result of the move to FEC. Councils will monitor
the proportion of grant applications which include requests for
Research Assistants (RAs), the Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) of
academics, RAs, technicians, project students and other staff
funded on grants (i.e. five separate counts), and the associated
costs, for each Council and collectively as RCUK.
- Councils will monitor the numbers of applications
received, and success rates for proposals (by number and by value
of grants) will be measured on a quarterly basis (for Councils
with no closing dates) or by round (for Councils with closing
dates). Success rate data by institution will be published annually
from June 2005.
11. ESRC needs to acknowledge the role that it
plays in the increasing concentration of research in a small number
of institutions. We recommend that ESRC co-ordinates its activities
with the other Research Councils and with HEFCE to ensure the
continued funding of excellent social science across a wide range
of departments, institutions and regions. (Paragraph 34)
It is not Government policy explicitly or otherwise
to concentrate research funding in large departments. ESRC, along
with the other Research Councils, aims to fund the highest quality
research wherever it is found. In addition, the Higher Education
Funding Council for England (HEFCE) allocates funding on the basis
of excellence as the main criterion—and similarly funds
excellent research wherever this is found. We recognise that this
may mean that the research aspirations of some HEIs cannot be
fully supported, but there is no policy of encouraging concentration
and we see no evidence that the geographical distribution of Government
funding is unhelpfully or harmfully limited. Excellent research
is increasingly a global business and as set out in the 'Science
and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014', we attach high
priority to maintaining and improving the competitive position
of the UK across all major disciplines.
12. We support ESRC's decision to use a streamlined
peer review process for small grant applications. (Paragraph 37)
ESRC notes this support.
13. We note that there are still a number of discrepancies
in the peer review processes utilised by the various Research
Councils. It is not clear why best practice in peer review should
vary significantly between the Research Councils. Moreover, harmonisation
of the peer review systems used by the Research Councils should
facilitate the evaluation of applications for interdisciplinary
research that fall within the remit of more than one Research
Council. (Paragraph 39)
ESRC's peer review processes are kept under regular
review in the light of best practice of other funders. As a part
of this, ESRC has actively participated in the development of
the cross-Council peer review benchmarking project and is planning
for ESRC's peer review processes to be benchmarked during 2005.
ESRC has implemented the recommendations of the Cross-Council
Research Forum on the peer review of research proposals at the
interface of the Research Councils and will keep the effectiveness
of these proposals under review.
The Research Councils believe that peer review is
not a single process, but a set of processes necessary to deal
with the different mechanisms for supporting research that is
also sensitive to the different needs, beliefs and cultures that
exist across the entire academic community. Councils are now moving
to a single electronic submission system, and there are opportunities
for sharing good practice in the operation of their peer review
processes. However, Councils believe that a single peer review
process would be inflexible and would not enable the best research
to be supported, and that processes should match individual Council's
respective missions and the nature of their research communities.
The Councils recognise that there are issues in the
support of multidisciplinary/ interdisciplinary research. As far
as peer review processes are concerned, the Councils do not believe
that harmonisation of the process would improve the position.
The existence of common forms or common processes is unlikely
to alter this as the difficulty is overcoming any inherent conservatism
of peer reviewers.
14. ESRC must continue to work closely with the
other Research Councils and the Funding Councils to reduce the
deleterious side-effects of the RAE and encourage the RAE subject
panels to be open and clear about what they will be measuring
and how they intend to do it. (Paragraph 40)
ESRC will continue its dialogue with the Funding
Councils on achieving the optimum conduct of the exercise. RAE
2008 is being set up and managed with close collaboration between
the Higher Education funding bodies and the Research Councils.
All Research Councils will be sending observers to the meetings
of the main panels. These observers will be able to contribute
to the discussions to be held by the panels in 2005 on appropriate
criteria for assessment. In particular, Research Councils are
concerned that interdisciplinary, practice-based and applied research
are given due regard in the exercise. A number of the panel and
sub-panel members will also be on Research Council committees.
Particular attention is being paid to avoiding possible
unintended consequences of the exercise and, in particular, the
panels will consult widely on their criteria for assessment before
these are published in autumn 2005. ESRC will be responding to
this consultation. Recent guidance to the panels (RAE 01/2005—www.rae.ac.uk/pub/2005/01)
requires them to identify clearly the criteria for excellence
that they will apply and the specific evidence, including quantitative
data, that they will use to inform their judgements against these
criteria.
15. Longitudinal studies and the collection and
maintenance of national datasets are essential to build an evidence
base to inform effective policy development. Such work is, however,
costly and it is unreasonable to expect ESRC to fund these major
activities out of its modest budget. Where a dataset is of particular
relevance to a Government Department, the Department should shoulder
the majority of the financial burden, whilst taking advantage
of ESRC's skills and experience. We recommend that ESRC pursues
this issue with the relevant Departments. In addition, given the
reliance on these datasets by both Government and the research
community, we recommend that future Spending Review allocations
ensure that the collection and maintenance of national datasets
are fully funded to prevent ESRC having to cut funding for other
research activities to preserve these important statistics. (Paragraph
43)
The Government welcomes the Committee's recognition
of the importance of the longitudinal studies and datasets supported
by ESRC. The question of co-funding will be raised by ESRC with
the relevant Government departments.
When drawing up their Departmental Submission for
the Spending Review, departments are currently required to consider
their research requirements for evidence-based policy development
and service delivery. The Government is currently looking into
how to co-ordinate better research and analysis, particularly
where the issues are cross-cutting. Issues relating to data sets
will be considered as part of this work.
Cross-Council Collaboration
16. We are pleased to see that ESRC has been engaged
in discussions with the other Research Councils regarding research
for international development. (Paragraph 45)
The Government and ESRC note this recommendation.
See also the response to Recommendation 5.
17. ESRC and the newly-established Arts and Humanities
Research Council must clarify their remits in areas of potential
overlap and communicate these to their research communities at
the earliest possible opportunity. (Paragraph 46)
Both ESRC and AHRC are committed to work closely
to ensure that their
respective research communities understand the subject domain
and responsibilities of each organisation. AHRB
and ESRC already have a joint statement in place of subject coverage
which explores the interface between the two. This is currently
available on both ESRC and AHRB websites[1].
ESRC and AHRC will of course work together to rectify any lack
of clarity for the research community, if this is necessary, including
a review of this joint statement on the interfaces between the
Arts and Humanities and the Social Sciences. However, neither
is currently aware of any major issues regarding this interface/boundary.
It will be important that both Councils demonstrate that they
are more than content to support high quality work which straddles
the boundary between the two Councils.
18. We welcome the steps taken so far to harmonise
the administrative functions of the Research Councils. (Paragraph
47)
The Government notes the Committee's supportive assessment.
ESRC will continue to work with the other Research
Councils, through RCUK, to implement the RCUK administration strategy
agreed by Chief Executives in December 2003. The Research Councils
are anticipating a range of business benefits to follow from the
Research Administration Programme, both internally and to the
research organisation stakeholders. The focus of harmonising administrative
functions will continue to be on improving the services that
Research Councils provide to the academic community. Research
Councils are preparing a plan for making more progress in administrative
harmonisation, which will include:
- delivering efficiency gains
of £170m by 2007-08 as part of the Research Councils' Gershon
efficiency project;
- continuing to implement the research administration
project which aims to provide Councils with a common research
administration system, enabling electronic processing of grants,
fellowships & studentships from submission to completion by
2007-08.
Support for Researchers
19. We recommend that ESRC remedies the current
lack of support for new researchers by introducing a ring-fenced
fund for newly-appointed investigators as soon as possible. We
support the suggestion by ESRC that these awards should include
training and development tailored to the needs of these researchers.
(Paragraph 49)
ESRC is presently considering, in the context of
developing its Delivery Plan 2005-08, a grants scheme specifically
for new researchers. This scheme would also support the professional
development of new researchers, including project and staff management
skills.
20. We support ESRC's decision to move towards
studentships funded for four years but also recommend that ESRC
retains sufficient flexibility in the studentships that it offers
to meet the diverse needs of both the candidates and higher education
institutes in the social science community. (Paragraph 52)
ESRC acknowledges the need to make its training provision
more flexible and is already working towards this. For example,
its new 'Postgraduate Training Guidelines' are encouraging Higher
Education Institutions to be innovative in the development and
delivery of their training programmes.
21. We agree with ESRC that the allocation of
studentships through quotas should assist higher education institutions
in forward planning and strategy development. However, it does
not follow that the quota system will automatically lead to better
quality students being awarded studentships. (Paragraph 53)
ESRC acknowledges that a quota system will not necessarily
lead to the selection of better quality students. However, allowing
universities to choose the students which they feel are the best
will reduce some of the common criticisms of the competition system.
22. ESRC must continue to award a significant
tranche of studentships through open competition. (Paragraph 57)
Following further strategic discussion by ESRC's
Training and Development Board in December 2004, it has been agreed
that ESRC will continue to award a reasonable proportion of studentships
through an open competition.
23. It is important that Research Councils monitor
demographic trends amongst their award holders and ensure that
the support that they offer is appropriate to their needs. We
also recommend that the Research Councils agree on a common approach
to data collection on demographics to facilitate comparison of
the profiles of their award holders. (Paragraph 60)
The Research Councils acknowledge the importance
of understanding the demographic make-up of their students and
each Council currently collects demographic data for its studentship
awards. RCUK is now working to actively build consistent monitoring
mechanisms across all Councils. The greater, more co-ordinated
focus provided by the newly established RCUK unit on Research
Careers and Diversity will bring tangible benefits in terms of
cross-Council data provision and analysis. This will extend and
enhance activities of the RCUK Postgraduate Training Group which
include support for transferable skills training agenda, funded
following the Roberts Report and led by UKGRAD, which pays particular
attention to demographic issues as they affect training delivery.
The Group is currently also working with the Higher Education
Statistics Agency (HESA) to capture data on Doctoral students'
first destinations, and this partnership will vastly improve the
ability to identify Research Council-funded students in the population
and enable consistent data to be made available, and is in dialogue
with the Funding Councils.
There is also a need for all interested parties,
including Research Councils, Funding Councils and the universities,
to work in partnership to ensure that research capacity across
the science base is maintained. This issue is being specifically
addressed through the Research Base Funders Forum, who are initially
focusing on the short term problems around health of disciplines
and are developing of a set of metrics to help DfES, the Funding
Councils, OST and Research Councils create and implement evidence
based policy on intervention in subjects giving cause for concern.
The Functional Sustainability sub-group of the Funders
Forum is working with the Funding Councils to ensure a joint approach
both in monitoring the overall system and identifying where action
may be needed. Present activities include ESRC working with AHRB
and the Funding Councils to provide demographic analysis of academic
retirement profiles across the disciplines, with further activities
currently being identified. Measures are being considered in strategic
context. Suggestions for criteria are national policy drivers
requiring particular research expertise; skills issues (particularly
shortages); and cultural/quality of life issues.
Skills Shortages
24. We are deeply concerned by the skills shortages
afflicting, in particular, the quantitative branches of social
science. It is hard to see how significant progress towards rectifying
these shortages can be made through deployment of ESRC's limited
resources. Furthermore, skills shortages in quantitative subjects
affect all the Research Councils. If Government is serious about
addressing skills shortages in key subjects it needs to find a
more effective mechanism to achieve this. We recommend that a
cross-Council approach be developed to the reversal of this erosion
of the skills base. (Paragraph 66)
Government is similarly concerned about a national
skills shortage, which affects many key areas, including mathematical
disciplines, and which underpin not only quantitative branches
of social sciences but also many of the natural and physical sciences.
We are concerned that there should be an adequate supply of skills
across all disciplines, to make Britain one of the most
competitive locations in the world for science, research and development.
We are fully committed to ensuring that every stage of the education
system, from primary schools to universities, can play its part.
That is why we have we have a raft of measures in place, set out
in the 'Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014'.
In addition, Sir Mike Tomlinson has published his
final report on 14-19 Curriculum and Qualifications Reform. The
Report states coherent programmes for 14-16 year olds must include
the statutory Key Stage 4 requirements, which include science.
It also says we would expect the majority of 14-16 year olds to
undertake accredited main learning components in science which
meet requirements of the National Curriculum. We will be responding
to Mike Tomlinson's report in the form of a White Paper shortly.
In addition to the measures that are already in place,
the Government's Success for All reform strategy for further
education will raise standards of teaching and achievement
in colleges, including in social science disciplines; thus increasing
the pool of talent on which the higher education sector can draw.
In higher education, we recognise the importance of postgraduate
research degree programmes in maintaining the skills base. As
research funding continues to increase above inflation, institutions
should be better able to fund new research staff as existing staff
leave. Influencing the supply of such people is complex.
Work on this issue is being taken forward by a number
of bodies, including the UK Research Base Funders' Forum. ESRC
is committed to working towards the health of all social science
disciplines. The Research Councils, Funding Councils and other
partners are committed to working together where specific problems
may arise.
25. We recommend the establishment of a national
Strategic Capabilities Fund to address skills shortages and ensure
national coverage in key subject shortage areas by building local
capacity. Measures that could be supported include Research Centres
and quotas for studentships in key subject areas or strategic
geographical locations. The management of the fund would be co-ordinated
by RCUK, but would also require the participation of HEFCE and
the Regional Development Agencies. (Paragraph 66)
Government is not convinced of the need to set up
a separate ring-fenced scheme to focus on skills shortages but
wishes to enable a flexible response that does not create any
additional bureaucracies on HEIs. Different solutions are needed
in different cases based on whether action is judged necessary
to stimulate demand or to increase supply, and whether the focus
is regional or national, on teaching or on research. A central
fund would be burdensome; and more likely to attract opportunistic
bidding from institutions with a comparatively weak case. Better
results can be obtained by Research Councils working bilaterally
with HEFCE and with RDAs—as exemplified below.
The 2004 Spending Review provided the DGRC with £35m
pa in support of strategic issues which could include health of
disciplines issues. The Science Budget allocations, which are
presently being determined, will take account of the health of
key disciplines. Details of SR2004 allocations to the Research
Councils will be announced shortly.
HEFCE Research Capability Fund supports research
in seven emerging subject areas where the research base is currently
not as strong as in more established subjects. Departments achieving
3a or 3b ratings in the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise are
eligible for this funding. The units of assessment supported by
the fund are: art and design (UoA 64), communication, cultural
and media studies (UoA 65), dance, drama and performing arts (UoA
66), nursing (UoA 10), other studies and professions allied to
medicine (UoA 11), social work (UoA 41) and sports-related studies
(UoA 69).
In addition to its "capability" fund, HEFCE
is working with individual Research Councils on more focussed
initiatives to strengthen the research base in sub-disciplines
of strategic importance judged to need such support; and is now
collaborating with Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council (EPSRC) on a Science Innovation Awards scheme covering
selected sub-disciplines within their field.
Ensuring national coverage in key subject areas is
mainly an issue for the Funding Councils who are represented on
the Funders Forum, which has taken a keen interest in this issue.
RCUK has worked with the Funding Councils to prepare a report
for the Funders Forum which highlights both whole disciplines
and sub-disciplines in urgent need of investment if a strong research
base is to be ensured. Both the Funding Councils and the Research
Councils wish to take forward this agenda jointly.
26. We are pleased that ESRC has undertaken to
conduct international reviews of subject areas, as pioneered by
EPSRC. ESRC should make a firm commitment to do this in its next
Operating Plan. (Paragraph 67)
ESRC is committed to carrying out the first international
review in 2005.
Knowledge Transfer and User Engagement
27. We applaud ESRC's efforts to improve the communication
and dissemination of its research and encourage it to continue,
in particular, to provide opportunities for award holders to enhance
their skills in this area. ESRC's work in this area serves as
a model of good practice for other Research Councils. (Paragraph
70)
The Government notes this assessment and will encourage
ESRC to continue to do this. ESRC intends to expand its work on
improving communication and dissemination of its research.
The Government fully supports ESRC's intention to
expand its current training provision for the researchers it supports
on public engagement and knowledge transfer activities.
28. ESRC has taken laudable steps to improve the
quality of its science and society activities but it needs to
ensure that it evaluates rigorously the effectiveness of these
activities. (Paragraph 71)
The Government and ESRC agree with this recommendation.
29. We are pleased that ESRC guarantees that negative
results arising from research that it funds are made freely available
within a reasonable period after the project has been completed.
(Paragraph 72)
The ESRC is developing an online information centre,
ESRC Society Today, which will help to disseminate further all
research outcomes to a broad audience, and which will include
all end of award reports on completed projects as well as any
materials voluntarily submitted by award holders. ESRC exercise
no control over academic publications resulting from ESRC funded
work.
30. ESRC-funded researchers have done some valuable
work with industry. We support these efforts and hope that industry
will continue to engage with UK social scientists. We trust that
ESRC is taking steps to rectify its lack of data collection on
its interaction with industry. (Paragraph 73)
ESRC recognises the scope for improvement in its
data collection in this area, such as the aggregation of data
held at the level of individual programmes and centres, and will
be addressing this.
Conclusion
The Government welcomes the Committee's report and
notes that ESRC is already working to consider and address many
of the recommendations. The areas of science which ESRC supports,
and on which it works with RCUK and partners to deliver, are of
increasing importance and relevance. The Government supports the
recommendations which will build a "critical mass" of
social researchers which can support the development of policies
which impact on society and the economy
February 2005
1 www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCContent/aboutesrc/ahrb.asp
http://www.ahrb.ac.uk/about/subject_coverage/joint_ahrb_esrc_statement_on_subject_coverage.asp Back
| 
