Memorandum submitted by the Research and
Development Society
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 The Research and Development Society
has conducted two pieces of research that we summarise here for
the benefit of the Committee.
1.2 Members of the UK Research and Development
(R&D) community who responded to our survey in August 2006
on "Science Higher Education in 2015: Employers' current
and future skill needs", want:
— science, technology and mathematics
graduates to have experience of the practical application of R&D
by applying their skills and academic knowledge through industrial
placement or practical projects.
— graduates to have good communication
skills and other transferable skills such as teamworking. Respondents
identified that these are currently detrimental.
— If possible, a clear way of communicating
their needs to the people that determine the contents of undergraduate
courses—the majority have no clear way of doing so at present.
1.3 The Society has also been consulting
widely with leading figures in the UK R&D community (from
a variety of sectors and organisation size) on what they thought
the future of UK R&D was likely to be and what role the R&D
Society could or should have in that future. These are the results
from our work to date that are of most relevance to this Inquiry:
— A key future challenge is skills
supply—"producing the right scientists in the right
numbers." "There must be a trained workforce with relevant
skills at all levels (including technicians and teachers)".
The UK R&D community needs "a properly integrated supply
chain from school to degree, to PhD to laboratory".
— Our main opportunity is our ability
to "release value from the knowledge base to increase productivity
through greater innovation." Within that, the interface between
academia and industry is key—"Identify national strengths
with global relevance (bio, geno, nano, etc) then ensure a functional
interface between academic and commercial activity in them."
"Academe must learn that innovation is not merely technology
transfer."
— The R&D community can assist
by
(a) communicating a "clear description
of the benefits to society of R&D",
(b) "instigating more partnerships",
especially between business and academia, and
(c) "taking a much broader view of innovation
than the development of new products driven by science and technology."
2. THE RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT
SOCIETY
2.1 The Research and Development Society
is a UK-based organisation which aims to promote the better understanding
of R&D in all its forms. It is unique in the UK in covering
all types of business and industry with an interest in R&D,
enabling common issues and solutions to be discovered, shared
and solved. With a membership spread across the full range of
UK R&D community, it holds regular meetings on a wide variety
of topics relating to innovation and R&D management best practice.
The R&D Society's administration is provided by the Royal
Society, but the R&D Society is independent, being a company
limited by guarantee run by its members through an Executive Committee
(board of directors).
3. THE SURVEY:
SCIENCE HIGHER
EDUCATION IN
2015: EMPLOYERS' CURRENT
AND FUTURE
SKILL NEEDS
3.1 The remainder of this document is based
on the summary report of the survey into "Science Higher
Education in 2015: Employers' current and future skill needs",
published in October 2006. We have also published on our website
an annex, containing the questionnaire and the full text of all
responses received. Both the summary and the annex can be accessed
at http://www.rdsoc.org/grads2015.html
3.2 The report summarises common themes
from the submissions of the respondents of the survey, and aims
to reflect their views. The questionnaire and report was produced
by the Research and Development Society thanks to the core funding
provided by its members.
4. THE SURVEY:
INTRODUCTION
4.1 During August 2006, the Research and
Development Society conducted a web-based survey of our members
and contacts of the current and future needs of employers in science-based
industries. The survey was conducted to enable organisations to
submit evidence to the Royal Society's science policy study on
Science Higher Education in 2015 and beyond, which is looking
at whether higher education in science, technology and mathematics
at UK universities and colleges will produce enough individuals
with the skills to meet the needs of the economy in 2015 and beyond.
4.2 The R&D Society conducted a survey
to assist with one important component of the study, namely, employers'
current and future demand for science, technology and mathematics
graduates. The R&D Society recognises that a key component
of the successful transfer "from ideas to wealth" is
the availability of high-quality staff, and so implemented this
survey to enable the UK R&D community to contribute to this
important study.
5. THE SURVEY:
RESPONDENTS
5.1 We received twenty-seven responses from
twenty-six organisations. Respondents were from a broad spread
of sectors across the UK R&D community, including aerospace
and defence (3 responses), chemicals and materials manufacturing
(4) (includes two responses from one organisation), business and
support services (3), universities (3), utilities (3), pharmaceuticals
and healthcare (2), telecommunications (2), Government research
and research support establishments (5), the automotive industry
(1), investment banking (1) and technology development (1).
5.2 Respondents were from a range of size
of companies, with six falling in the Small and Medium Enterprise
(SME) category of up to 500 employees, nine having between 501
and 2000 staff, four between 2001 and 5000 staff and 8 employing
over 5000 staff. The number of scientists, technologists or mathematicians
employed by respondents was generally proportional to the total
number of employees, but there was a broad spread of those companies
with a high proportion of scientists as staff, and those with
lower levels, as the table shows.
|
Total number
of scientists,
technologists
or
mathematicians
employed
| Total number of staff employed
|
| 1-250
| 251-500 | 501-2000
| 2001-5000 | 5000+
|
|
| 1-25 | 3 |
| | |
|
| 26-50 | 1 |
| 1 |
| |
| 51-250 | 1 |
1 | 2
| 3 | 1
|
| 250-500 | | |
2 | | 1
|
| 500+ | | |
5 | 1
| 6 |
|
Table of the number of respondents for each combination of
total staff and total scientists, technologists or mathematicians
employed.
5.3 Of the respondents themselves, eleven were company
directors or senior managers, five managed a lab, research team
or project group, four worked in research but had no direct line
management, and five worked in human resources. More than half
(15 out of 26) directly supervised more than six staff, and just
over a quarter supervised more than fifteen. When questioned about
their responsibility for recruiting science, technology and mathematics
graduates, six described themselves as primarily responsible for
recruiting all or some in their organisation, eight for recruiting
all or some in their team only, and twelve said they had some
influence in recruiting graduates in their organisation—this
included some company directors and human resources' staff. All
respondents had graduate qualifications in science, technology
or mathematics—three quarters held a masters degree or postgraduate
qualification.
5.4 The survey could be completed anonymously. All respondents
agreed to their responses being published in an anonymous form.
Seventeen respondents agreed to have their organisation credited
in the report. They are (in alphabetical order): Cranfield University,
De La Rue International Limited, Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council, Huntleigh Healthcare, Kodak Ltd, LGC, London
Knowledge Innovation Centre, Medical Research Council, Morgan
Stanley, National Grid, O2, Patent Office, QinetiQ, Rentokil Initial,
Rolls-Royce, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, RWE npower.
6. THE SURVEY:
QUESTIONS
6.1 We asked six open questions, supplemented by a range
of closed questions about the respondent's organisation, role,
recruitment influence, and personal background.
— What do you want from the science, technology
and mathematics graduates you appoint?
— Are the science, technology and mathematics graduates
you appoint well prepared for their roles? Has this changed recently?
— What skills, knowledge and experience are lacking?
Has this changed recently?
— What can they do that you hadn't expected/didn't
require? Has this changed recently?
— From your perspective, what components are important
as part of Higher education? Which experiences is it important
to offer students?
— How (if at all) do you communicate your requirements
to the people who determine the contents of undergraduate courses?
7. THE SURVEY:
RESPONDENTS' CURRENT
AND FUTURE
NEEDS FOR
GRADUATES IN
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY
AND MATHEMATICS
FROM UK UNIVERSITIES
7.1 The following is a summary of the key messages from
the responses received. The annex to this report lists the full
text of the responses, in an anonymous form.
7.2 Respondents want transferable personal skills and applicable
science knowledge
7.2.1 When asked "What do you want from the science,
technology and mathematics graduates you appoint?", respondents
overwhelmingly wrote about personal and communication skills and
applicable science knowledge.
7.2.2 An understanding of basic science was mentioned
by fifteen respondents, who wrote about wanting graduates with
a "good grounding in science", a "broad level of
scientific literacy," or "with a strong maths / physics
/ technology foundation". Three spoke of requiring strong
academic specialist knowledge, with another calling for "highly
developed technical and mathematical skills".
7.2.3 Written and verbal communication, were both cited
by fourteen respondents as being key. Seven specifically cited
numeracy.
7.2.4 Ten respondents talked of teamworking, a further
two respondents required the ability to influence and persuade,
or to build relationships and two others requested "interpersonal
skills". Eight wanted a variety of planning skills—to
be able to plan a work programme, prioritise, multitask, and have
self-discipline.
7.2.5 Problem solving was mentioned by five respondents;
innovative behaviour or "thinking outside the box" by
six, and a further two cited creative thinking. Seven required
a logical and analytical approach or "critical thinking",
and five wanted cross-discipline thinking or versatility and adaptability.
7.2.6 Being able to understand the business environment
(three respondents), to be able to relate one's expertise to business
(two) or to have a challenging applied final year project were
also required.
7.2.7 "Many students fail at the interview stage
as they not aware, or do not place as much focus on the need to
have strong communication and team working skills. This is often
frustrating, as technically they are highly proficient but have
failed to appreciate the equal importance of these soft skills
in allowing them to successfully apply their technical knowledge
in the work place."
7.3 Respondents call for significant improvements in communication
and numeracy skills
7.3.1 A clear message, communicated throughout the responses
was that graduates' written and verbal communication skills were
in need of significant improvement. As noted above, fourteen respondents
wanted graduates to have good communication skills, but many were
concerned that they had experienced a drop in the standard of
graduates' communication skills. Seven wrote of a lack of communication
skills and four of a lack of numeracy or mathematics skills in
the graduates they appointed recently, and several of these perceived
a decline in these skills over recent years.
7.3.2 "Written English language skills on occasion
are startlingly poor." "General levels of literacy and
numeracy are lower, particularly spelling, grammar and vocabulary—many
recruits are not able to write acceptable letters or reports."
7.3.3 On the positive side, one respondent wrote that
graduates "are better at report writing and project work"
than anticipated, and another, from a different industry sector,
said that they were "all keen to do more training courses
and often express enthusiasm for things involving young people
(eg science festival, placement in schools)".
7.4 Respondents think higher education should offer experience
of industrial research and develop interpersonal skills, in addition
to developing academic knowledge and rigour
7.4.1 When asked what higher education should provide,
as could be expected, most respondents expected "skills,
knowledge and awareness in degree subject(s)", a "good
basic understanding of [their] subject area" and "academic
rigour". Though some respondents required particular specialisations,
others noted that graduates should have "a broad basis before
you specialise in depth" or should have a "sound basic
knowledge of the principles" of their field.
7.4.2 One third wrote of the need for graduates to have
"a really good idea of the work environment" through,
for example, industrial placements, job shadowing, "business
training", "practical, challenging projects" or
"real research experience". One organisation, in discussing
their links with academia stated that they "do not have the
resources to address the scope of expectations from a majority
of agencies, and would like to focus our resources and provide
our support to students with a keen interest and aptitude in the
science & technologies appropriate to our business."
Four respondents cited "knowledge and understanding of where
and how science and technology fit into the rest of the world",
with "technology/social interaction and government/technology
interaction", including "an awareness of intellectual
property and patents".
7.4.3 One third also listed different elements of interpersonal
work skills, summarised by one respondent as, "Interpersonal
& communication skills that enable people to effectively communicate
orally (small & large groups) (and in writing) ideas and concepts
to experts and non-experts alike, work in teams, seek & share
ideas, concepts & information."
7.4.4 Other requirements included practical lab skills,
problem solving abilities, flexibility in their skills and confidence.
7.4.5 Two respondents wrote that they expected to train
their graduates in certain skills—eg "if they have
intellectual capability, basic maths and physics knowledge and
understanding to degree level, we can do the rest."
7.4.6 One respondent noted that graduates "lack
business awareness & business skills, as would be expected.
This is addressed though the core graduate programme. We are finding
that science & technology degrees increasingly include business
awareness training, though this additional training often lacks
context and makes it difficult for graduates to employ the business
training in their initial roles.
7.5 Respondents found students are more ambitious and have
better IT skills than anticipated
7.5.1 Five respondents noted that recent graduates are
more computer literate than anticipated and than previously, though
one noted that "their computer skills are higher than we
need." One also talked about graduates having a "good
understanding of digital convergence and opportunities this opens
up".
7.5.2 Four respondents wrote of the expectations, confidence
and ambition of graduates being higher than expected—though
two warned that their confidence and eagerness to progress may
be misplaced. "They usually are very enthusiastic, but sometimes
frustrated by the pace of change—suggesting minimal prior
exposure to a real world or an industrial setting. Their desire
for growth and international exposure is sometimes greater than
can be met within normal business expectations." One other
organisation noted that graduates from overseas have higher confidence
levels than UK graduates.
7.5.3 Experience in giving presentations was cited by
three respondents, and two wrote of better-than-expected technical
knowledge, awareness of other disciplines, or principles of management
or business studies—though this respondent noted that was
not required for "a technical capacity in industry".
7.6 Respondents have no clear way of communicating their
needs to the people that determine the contents of undergraduate
courses
7.6.1 Respondents either did not communicate their needs
to the people that set courses (ten responses) or cited informal
contact with lecturers and university staff (fourteen)—though
some gave the impression that they were not sure if this was effective.
Twelve of the fourteen only wrote about influencing course content
at one or a few universities or individual departments. Only one
of the respondents wrote about higher-level funding policy: "There
is no easy mechanism for industry to do this as there are many
universities. I am a BOARD MEMBER on one University just trying
to understand this." [Respondent's emphasis]
7.6.2 Four respondents stated that they had clear ways
of communicating their requirements: one had "input via engineering
institutions course accreditation processes" (and also had
informal contact with university staff), one was a "member
of educational advisory group", one stated that "as
part of the sector we work with the developers of undergraduate
courses" and one stated that "we have very strong links
to many UK universities that will help provide universities with
a clear view of what we do and what we require from our graduates",
through joint research, joint assessment and graduate marketing.
This was one of three respondents that cited the job market as
a method of communicating requirements—though not all were
implied to be effective—"I usually just moan to the
recruitment agencies about the quality of people on offer."
7.6.3 Respondents gave the impression that they would
be willing to communicate their needs, if they were asked or if
there was an appropriate mechanism to do so. One suggested that
this should be anonymous.
8. THE SURVEY:
OTHER ISSUES
8.1 Respondents cited specific subject knowledge where
they are experiencing difficulties, which usually reflects their
organisation's speciality: "Physicists more difficult to
find than chemists", "Skills related to curation of
collections and a restricted knowledge of whole organism (plant)
biology", "Chemists—lack of knowledge of formulation
chemistry", "Micro-biologists—lack of knowledge
of disinfectants", "Finding good chemistry graduates
is getting harder", "PhD/Post Docs with Mass Spectrometry
and Separation Science backgrounds, which we have found very difficult
to recruit", "infrastructure skills [ ... ] engineering
and networking", "engineering calculation skills",
"Specific need for power engineers is difficult to fill."
8.2 Two respondents perceived inconsistencies in university
degree structures. "There is huge variation in ability [of
the graduates], almost regardless of the degree type of level
shown on paper." "[The preparedness of graduates] depends
very much on the university from which they have graduated. There
is clearly a difference in academic level between different universities
and so the university courses may need to be graded, as well as
the student's degree."
8.3 Two, unprompted, comments were about levels of pay:
"A big issue for us currently is pay and the cost of living
in London. While this is not part of your survey, it can have
a great influence on attracting people to research, retaining
them in the institute and attracting them to a biological course
or to University at all." "Mostly the graduates we hire
tend to be from European universities because the salaries in
non-profits are not attractive for UK graduates".
8.4 Respondents were receptive to being consulted on
this issue—"it is good to have the opportunity to contribute
to this debate." One respondent put it bluntly: "I believe
the ability to attract and keep good engineers and scientists
is the most serious threat to our company."
December 2006
| 
