THE HUB AND SPOKES MODEL AND REGIONAL
PROVISION
- Recommendation 44—The
hub and spokes model of university provision would allow STEM
departments to capitalise on their areas of strength, whether
they are research, teaching or knowledge-transfer, whilst still
ensuring that undergraduates received a rounded education in the
discipline of their choice. By collaborating on their provision
of STEM courses, departments would make more efficient use of
resources, and thereby ease the financial difficulties currently
being experienced by many STEM departments. We recommend that
the Government encourages the acceptance and implementation of
this model throughout the system via HEFCE, the RDAs and Universities
UK, and by means of the funding regime for higher education. (Paragraph
125)
TEACHING AND RESEARCH
The Committee concludes that universities should
focus on their strengths, whether in teaching, research, knowledge
transfer or other areas. The Government holds a similar view:
believing that all universities should offer excellent teaching,
and that beyond this they should focus on their strengths. Teaching
is so fundamental that every institution needs to do it well.
We accept the HE Research Forum's advice of July
2004 that excellence in teaching requires that teaching is "research
informed". The Research Councils too are keen that teaching
should occur in a research environment as far as possible. Based
on the Forum's advice, we have provided additional funding to
HEFCE to develop "research informed teaching". We do
not require that all teaching staff are research-active, but we
do expect to see current research findings and research methods
included in teaching. "Research informed teaching" funding
will help universities to develop their links to research, and
has the potential to produce some interesting new ideas and partnerships.
COLLABORATION AND THE HUB AND SPOKES MODEL
- Recommendation 43—Universities
are not islands. If the way to healthy provision of STEM subjects
in English universities lies in collaboration between institutions,
they will need to work together in the national and regional interest.
(Paragraph 119)
- Recommendation 46—Under
the hub and spokes model of university provision, a greater number
of universities may choose to focus on their knowledge transfer
activities. Third stream funding (HEIF) is still relatively modest
in comparison with the funds available for teaching and research.
The Government may need to consider developing HEIF further in
order to encourage more universities to concentrate on knowledge
transfer. A concomitant increase in research funding from industry
will also need to be encouraged if universities are to have a
real opportunity of diversifying. (Paragraph 131)
The HE Research Forum also provided the Government
with valuable advice on how to encourage collaboration between
institutions. A key finding is that such collaboration should
be "bottom-up", led by the institutions themselves.
Again, this reflects Research Council views, and
those of HEFCE. RCUK advises that from the perspective of both
research and postgraduate training, bottom-up collaboration is
preferable. HEFCE adds that collaboration requires trust and effective
relationships between the partners.
A number of successful collaborations are already
underway, some of them along the lines of the "hub and spokes
model" the Committee proposes. Initiatives such as the Promising
Researcher Fellowship Scheme already provide opportunities for
staff from less research intensive institutions to spend some
time in a research intensive environment. Lifelong Learning Networks
are being put in place to offer progression routes to students,
enabling movement through from Foundation Degrees to honours,
or, indeed, research-led degrees across a number of institutions.
This year, HEFCE has also funded 74 Centres of Excellence in
Teaching and Learning (CETLs). Funding for these Centres will
total £315 million over five years from 2005/06 to 2009/10,
with each receiving recurrent funding ranging from £200,000
to £500,000 per annum for five years, and a capital sum ranging
from £0.8 million to £2 million. This initiative represents
HEFCE's largest ever single funding initiative in teaching and
learning. The CETLs were selected through a competitive bidding
process, and are well distributed geographically and reach across
all the main subject areas and involve many aspects of student
learning.
RCUK reports that the Research Councils are also
involved in "bottom up" collaborations such as EPSRC
supported research consortia and Collaborative Training Accounts
which involve more than one university. In Scotland proposals
are being developed linking physics and chemistry departments
in several universities. In economics such a consortium has successfully
operated via the Scottish Doctoral Programme in Economics for
many years with similar moves under consideration in other social
science disciplines.
The Committee proposes that Government "encourages"
implementation of a "hub and spokes" model of regional
provision, by various means including via the funding regime.
We recognise that, in focussing on their particular strengths,
institutions or departments may draw their funding in different
proportions from different sources e.g. HEIF. Gearing the funding
regime to a hub and spokes model seems to us to be too much "top
down", however, and would be likely to appear to institutions
as imposition rather than encouragement. Government, Funding Councils
and Research Councils would all be very cautious about this.
HEFCE notes that models of specialisation are
attractive when they can be considered from the beginning, but
efforts to impose such arrangements would require new funding
and HEFCE is not sanguine that they would meet with success. HEFCE
can see benefits arising, however, where institutions choose of
their own accord to co-operate in a "hub and spokes"
model.
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF RESEARCH
- Recommendation 45—We
recommend that a Regional Affairs Committee is established within
HEFCE to coordinate the implementation of the hub and spokes model
within the regions. The Committee should contain representatives
from each of the Regional Development Agencies, who would each
be responsible for ensuring the implementation of decisions taken
by the Committee within their region. The Committee should draw
upon the valuable work being carried out by the Research Base
Funders' Forum on the health of disciplines, giving this work
some practical effect. HEFCE's Regional Affairs Committee would
also be responsible for monitoring the implementation and success
of the hub and spokes model in the regions. (Paragraph 127)
- Recommendation 47—The
proximity of a source of skills and research capacity is one of
the main considerations when a business decides where to locate.
This is particularly the case for smaller companies. (Paragraph
134)
- Recommendation 48—If
university departments suffer particularly heavy losses in one
region, there is a possibility that businesses within the region
would also suffer or, worse, migrate to a region where conditions
were better. In this way, universities play a pivotal role in
their regional economies. (Paragraph 136)
- Recommendation 49—There
are sound economic and social arguments for ensuring that there
is a strong research presence in each of England's regions. We
do not agree that protecting this research presence would involve
lowering standards. Quality can be preserved if every university
and every region play to their individual strengths instead of
concentrating all their efforts on the same goal, and the same
limited pot of research money. (Paragraph 137)
- Recommendation 52—Whilst
we believe that all prospective STEM students should have the
opportunity to study within their region, it would be unreasonable,
and a strain on resources, to expect provision of each and every
subject to be maintained in every sub-region. Sub-regional provision
can be addressed through regional collaboration between universities.
(Paragraph 143)
We do not want to limit institutions to one particular
model of collaboration, or to collaboration only with other HE
providers: FE, employers and others can all form partnerships
helpful to research. Neither do we want to limit collaboration
to regional boundaries. Universities operate on a national and
international scale as well as on a regional and local one. We
would expect that in circumstances where departmental closures
cause problems for local employers that other institutions in
the neighbouring regions as well as other institutions within
the region would be able to step in.
RCUK reports that the Research Councils would
emphasise the principle of funding research on the basis of excellence,
irrespective of geographical location: they do not wish to go
down the route of regional quotas/allocations of funding. The
Research Councils observe that whilst the "hub and spokes"
model would appear to be a sensible approach to provision in regions,
it is important also to consider the specific needs of individual
subject areas. In subjects such as specialist language-based area
studies, there are very few departments across the UK and a very
small number of centres of excellence. In order to maintain the
UK's research standing in these areas, the Research Councils suggest
it may be appropriate to invest in existing centres of excellence,
and thereby ensure national provision, rather than to spread investment
across a large number of centres.
HEFCE believes that it cannot, and should not,
attempt to prescribe where subjects should be provided, or to
interfere in proper institutional decisions about their strategic
direction. The advice HEFCE has provided to Ministers on strategic
subjects recognised the importance of accessibility, but nevertheless
did not see a need to have departments in all subjects in all
regions. HEFCE does not feel, either, that there is a need for
specific regional planning of research provision. It believes
that action to support a strong research base across the disciplinary
range is best planned and executed at national level; and that,
in fact, research provision of high quality across the range,
together with a broad portfolio of other activities, is at present
to be found in all regions. In that light, HEFCE endorses the
Committee's view that institutions should play to their established
strengths in all activities. Whilst keeping under review which
of its programmes should properly reflect regional priorities,
HEFCE sees no justification for establishing explicit regional
structures to plan research provision; these would carry a high
risk of costly duplication of activities in a few fields of perceived
current policy interest.
The Committee recommended that HEFCE establish a
"Regional Affairs Committee" to coordinate implementation
of the "hub and spokes model". We have already made
clear that we do not intend to impose this model.
HEFCE notes, however, that it is already working
closely with Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in all of the
nine English regions, and has established Regional Advisory Groups,
which include the RDAs, Government Offices and other funding bodies
such as the LSC. These meet regularly to discuss policy initiatives
with HEFCE, and often to offer advice about funding allocations
where there is an appropriate regional focus: for example, they
have recently met to help in defining regional priorities for
the allocation of additional funded numbers.
Institutions in the regions—both HE and
FE—also already collaborate on the regional and sub-regional
provision of higher education within regions through fora such
as Lifelong Learning Networks.
VARIABLE FEES
- Recommendation 50—If
STEM departments continue to close, there is a real danger that
some STEM students will be unable to study their chosen subject
in their home region, should they choose to do so. (Paragraph
140)
- Recommendation 51—It
is too early to assess what impact the impending introduction
of variable tuition fees will have on departmental closures as
universities position themselves in preparation for the new system.
We agree, however, with the reply given to the Committee by the
Director General of the Research Councils, that the impact of
variable tuition fees on STEM departments should be kept under
constant review, and that emerging evidence should be published
as part of the Government's ongoing reviews to make clear what
the impact of the scheme has been. It is also logical to assume
that, given increasing levels of student debt, an increasing proportion
of the student population will be unable to live away from home.
It is therefore extremely important that provision for core STEM
subjects is maintained in every region. (Paragraph 142)
As outlined elsewhere in this response, our introduction
of variable tuition fees aims to increase the flexibility for
universities to manage their finances. Payment of fees is deferred,
and, as we have noted, a number of bursaries are available - some
of which are targeted at STEM subjects. Demand from employers
for STEM skills should mean that students see that the costs incurred
in studying these subjects are outweighed by the benefits. We
are committed to keeping the impact of variable fees under review,
and will consider the effect on STEM subjects as part of our wider
consideration of factors influencing student demand.
The Research Councils are also interested in reviewing
the impact of student debt on progression to postgraduate study,
and recognise that they may need to improve and emphasise the
selling points of postgraduate study (transferable skills, increased
employability, perhaps through more CASE awards), and, potentially,
consider developing incentives.
The Committee suggests that financial considerations
will lead more students to study locally. Students' decisions
to study locally may involve factors other than cost, of course:
some may have dependents to consider; others may fear losing established
networks of friends. We will use research available on factors
influencing young people, and our review of the initiatives in
place to promote STEM subjects and reach particular groups to
ensure we recognise the factors at work.
HEFCE has considered the potential effect of financial
considerations as part of its examination of strategic subjects,
and advises that student and graduate mobility should not be underestimated,
and that new opportunities from distance learning and short intensive
courses are increasingly being offered.
|
