GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF RESEARCH AND TEACHING
- Recommendation 1—Given
the unlikelihood of increased overall funding, this Report focuses
on ways in which existing funds can be used more effectively to
ensure good provision of STEM subjects in English universities.
(Paragraph 7)
The Committee contends that Government funding policy
has contributed to making some science departments vulnerable
to closure. Its criticism focuses on the allocation of funding
between subjects and institutions, but it also suggests that overall
funding levels are inadequate, but "unlikely to increase"
.
In fact, of course, we have already significantly
increased our commitment to supporting science, as our evidence
to the Committee noted. We have invested more in both dual support
streams, and developed the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF)
to support knowledge transfer, and the Science Research Investment
Fund (SRIF) to address historic under-investment in research infrastructure.
Overall, we are raising science spending by over £1billion
by 2007/08 compared with 2004/05 on top of an additional £1.25
billion investment in the previous Spending Review. This is a
substantial and sustained commitment.
FUNDING TEACHING
- Recommendation 37—Research
concentration is not an evil per se: it only
becomes a problem when it occurs in a uniform system, where universities
that do not carry out world class research but are nonetheless
strong in other areas of their work, are disregarded. (Paragraph
103)
- Recommendation 38—It
would be unacceptable if universities had to use research funds
to subsidise teaching activity. In order to ensure that both teaching
and research are supported at a sustainable level, the Government
needs to have a clear understanding of the costs of each type
of activity. We recommend that it uses the TRAC methodology to
produce a comprehensive analysis of the costs of research and
teaching relative to the level of funding that each activity receives.
(Paragraph 108)
- Recommendation 39—Departmental
expenditure is a flawed basis from which to calculate the level
of teaching funding allocated to STEM departments. This seems
to have been accepted by HEFCE: we understand that it has commissioned
research on possible cost-based approaches to funding, including
an approach based on the TRAC methodology. (Paragraph 109)
- Recommendation 40—STEM
subjects might have seen a slight increase in their levels of
teaching resource, even after the change in subject weightings
for their category was reduced from 2.0 to 1.7. However, any such
increases need to be set against a history of chronic under funding
for teaching. We recommend that the Government uses its research
into the costs of teaching, facilitated by the TRAC methodology,
to reach a settlement for STEM subjects that accurately reflects
their cost. (Paragraph 111)
- Recommendation 41—It
would be a matter of regret if, when HEFCE changed the subject
weighting for teaching funding, competition between the science
and engineering bodies about the relative importance of their
areas of specialism had prevented some subjects, such as chemistry
and physics, from receiving the funding uplifts that they so badly
needed. The scientific community needs to pull together to ensure
that future discussions about funding are resolved in the interests
of science as a whole, regardless of the interests of individual
specialisms. (Paragraph 112)
- Recommendation 42—Many
students benefit from exposure to research during their undergraduate
degree, particularly if they want to go on to pursue a career
in research. However, research intensive departments are not essential
to train all STEM students. It is an inevitable, if inadequately
foreseen, consequence of the drive towards higher levels of participation
in higher education that it is unsustainable for every student
to be taught in a research active environment. This is unfortunate,
but not necessarily damaging, provided that all STEM students
are taught on the basis of scholarship, if not research. We recommend
that the Government and universities recognise that teaching-focused
departments are not only accepted, but supported sufficiently
well to ensure that they retain good quality staff and a commensurately
high status. (Paragraph 118)
Both teaching and research funding are allocated
to universities as a block grant. We do not hypothecate it, and
have no plans to do so. We believe institutions should have the
ability to use limited cross subsidy as part of their management
strategy. Indeed, we have sought to increase the flexibility available
to university managers to draw on different funding streams. The
development of Full Economic Costing is a key policy in this respect,
and the introduction of variable fees also increases flexibility
for universities to manage their finances. Programmes like the
Science Research Investment Fund (SRIF) are helping to build institutions'
strategic planning capabilities and allow them to make best use
of the flexibility available to them.
The Committee does not entirely welcome this flexibility,
stating that it would be unacceptable if universities had to use
research funds to subsidise teaching activity. We agree that significant
or enforced use of research funds for teaching could threaten
the research quality that won the funding in the first place,
and we do not believe institutions would be likely develop their
strategies on this basis. Teaching and research are linked not
parallel processes, however. In its advice to Ministers on teaching
and research, the HE Research Forum noted that one of the strongest
links between teaching and research is the way in which research
based information resources are accessed for information that
is then incorporated into delivery of teaching.
The Committee itself recommends that "all STEM
students are taught on the basis of scholarship if not research".
In the latest grant letter to HEFCE, DfES provided £25m
to support a "research-informed teaching environment"
to be allocated by a formula in inverse proportion to research
funding.
HEFCE has decided to allocate this as £10m
in 2006/07 and £15m in 2007/08 and has recently taken advice
from an expert panel on the nature of links between teaching and
research, and how funds can best be used to support an appropriate
environment. Proposals will go to the HEFCE Board in September,
and a consultation will follow.
HEFCE is currently exploring appropriate formula,
and considering issues which arise around HE delivered in FE [former
education] as well as inviting contributions from the Teacher
Training Agency (TTA) and NHS.
HEFCE has undertaken to continue monitoring carefully
the impact on the HE sector and on STEM disciplines in particular,
of its grant allocation decisions and of changes in approach by
the Research Councils and other partners. Work on monitoring sustainability
led by the Research Base Funders' Forum can make an important
contribution to this. HEFCE has undertaken and is commissioning
a considerable body of work using TRAC approaches to improve its
understanding of the full costs of undertaking both teaching and
research in HE across the range of activities and disciplines.
This work will inform a planned review of grant allocation methods
for teaching, and decisions on funding for research following
the next Research Assessment Exercise (RAE).
Good information on costs of teaching and research
will also be key in making any future case for additional Government
funding.
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
- Recommendation 31—The
funding allocations made as a result of RAE 2001 have severely
compromised the financial viability of departments rated 4 or
lower, particularly in those institutions that do not have an
overall majority of research staff in departments rated 5 or higher.
In order to prevent the continued decline of many 4rated
departments, there needs to be a reduction in the steepness of
the "cliff edges" between the funding allocated to departments
falling within different funding bands. (Paragraph 93)
- Recommendation 32—We
hope that the new "quality profiles" to be used in RAE
2008 will help to reduce the steepness of the funding scale for
the allocation QR funds. In the meantime, however, many departments
are still feeling the adverse effects of the funding arrangements
made as a result of RAE 2001. The Government may have to recognise
that short term measures, such as those proposed by HEFCE, are
required to support departments currently rated 4 or lower until
the new arrangements have had time to take effect. (Paragraph
94)
- Recommendation 33—The
move towards Research Councils meeting the full economic cost
of the research projects that they fund should improve the financial
viability and thus the sustainability of STEM departments carrying
out a significant volume of research. In turn, this may mitigate
against some of the more negative consequences of the RAE. We
hope that our successor Committee will have the opportunity to
assess the impact of this new policy once it has had time to take
effect. (Paragraph 95)
- Recommendation 34—The
concentration of research funds is an inevitable consequence of
a system that funds research on the basis of excellence from limited
funds. The Government is responsible for this system. It is therefore
disingenuous of the Government to deny that it has a policy to
concentrate research. (Paragraph 96)
- Recommendation 35—Instead
of resolving the financial difficulties experienced by some STEM
departments, the wholesale redistribution of research funds would
diffuse those problems more widely. Such a policy would threaten
the ability of 5 and 5* rated departments to continue performing
at a high level. It would also risk their international standing,
a move that could have adverse consequences for the UK's international
competitiveness and for individual careers. In the absence of
increased overall funding, "robbing Peter to pay Paul"
is not a viable solution to the financial difficulties of some
STEM departments. (Paragraph 101)
- Recommendation 36—We
urge the Government to reconsider its rejection of proposals for
a three-tier research assessment process. Such a process would
allow departments to bid for funding on the basis of merit instead
of imposing an arbitrary cut off point for departments upholding
the same standard of research activity. Although this would not
increase overall levels of funding for research, it would distribute
existing funds more fairly amongst lower performing departments.
(Paragraph 102)
The Committee has taken issue particularly with the
distribution of Quality Related research funding based on the
Research Assessment Exercise. It has suggested that Government
is disingenuous to deny that we have a policy to concentrate research.
Nevertheless, we do not have such a policy. We have a policy to
fund selectively on the basis of excellence. Selectivity may have
resulted in some concentration, but, as HEFCE noted in its evidence,
concentration has not increased significantly in recent years,
and there are still some 70 institutions with at least one 5*
department. We remain to be convinced that selectivity inevitably
produces concentration, and expect that the 2008 RAE will show
pockets of excellence spread throughout a wide range of institutions.
As well as selectively funding excellent research,
our policy is to secure a dynamic and responsive research base
and adequate targeted support to research in fields that may be
less well developed or otherwise exceptionally in need of support
to secure excellent provision for the future. HEFCE's approach
in allocating research funding reflects this, protecting resourcing
of the highest quality research, while maintaining the diversity
and sustainability of the overall research base. The Research
Councils, whose own funding is allocated on a competitive basis,
also recognise the need to continue to build capacity and capability
in areas where there are only a small number of excellent departments.
As part of our commitment to excellence, we are committed
to ongoing review of the RAE; however, we do not intend any further
review of funding decisions taken following the 2001 RAE. We accept
that 4 rated institutions could not have expected the cut in their
funding, but it was a consequence of an improvement in research
quality that itself exceeded expectations. The number of departments
receiving the "excellent" 5 or 5* rating rose to 821
in the 2001 RAE—an increase of 324. This put pressure on
funding for the 479 departments which received the "good"
4 rating. Institutions themselves will be familiar with this situation:
in a field of applicants where far more than expected receive
"A" grades, those with perfectly respectable "B"
grades find it harder to obtain places. We are pleased that the
Committee recognises the pressures at work here and agrees that
"robbing Peter to pay Paul" is not a viable option.
HEFCE and the RCUK agree with the Government and
the Committee that the next RAE should proceed. HEFCE and the
Research Councils are working closely together to ensure that
it successfully identifies all forms of research excellence. Research
Councils are represented on the RAE panels, and panels have instructions
to recognise outputs other than standard academic publications,
and impacts beyond the research discipline. For example, the Research
Councils advise that chemistry is an indispensable component of
world class biomedical science, and the RAE should consider excellence
achieved by chemistry working not just alone, but in inter-institutional
and multi-disciplinary configurations.
Another area where the RAE has been criticised is
in its potential indirect impact on the research careers of specific
groups, particularly women, who will take career breaks at times
when for many people research is the major part of their work.
The Funding Councils have required RAE 2008 panels to take account
of early career staff and to explain how they are doing this in
the subject specific criteria published for consultation. All
panel members and secretaries are receiving Equal Opportunities
training from the Equality Challenge Unit, and submitting institutions
will also be required to have an internal code of practice on
selection of staff for submission.
As the Research Councils (and others) have noted,
it is possible for individuals to undertake world class research
within 4 rated departments. The introduction of "quality
profiling" in the 2008 RAE will help to better identify such
pockets of excellence within good or improving departments. HEFCE
believe that quality profiling will also go a long way to counter
the risk of rating scale and funding arrangements producing the
"cliff edge" effect noted in RAE 2001, where the award
of a 4 rather than a 5 rating to one department made an uncomfortably
significant difference to the host institution's grant.
The Committee recommends that we consider intervention
to help departments rated 4 in the run up to the 2008 RAE. HEFCE
has already guaranteed to maintain levels of funding to these
departments. We are not inclined to make further support available
on the basis of 2001 RAE ratings, but, as we have already said,
we will be considering HEFCE's advice on the potential for responding
to specific vulnerabilities.
As we have said, we are committed to keeping the
RAE under review, and a metrics exercise is proceeding in shadow
to the 2008 RAE to inform discussions about what happens after
that. We made clear in our response to the Roberts review that
we do not support a three-tier research assessment system, however.
HEFCE have observed that it would be cumbersome to operate, would
unacceptably exclude whole institutions from the highest level
of assessment, and does not command the support of the sector.
In the face of opposition from the sector, we believe that imposing
a three-tier approach would be particularly unhelpful, and we
feel it would do nothing to improve the recognition of "pockets
of excellence".
The Research Councils agree with the Committee's
observation that their move towards meeting the full economic
costs of the projects that they fund should improve the viability
of some STEM departments.
|
