Memorandum 62
Submission from Research Councils UK
INQUIRY INTO
STUDENTS AND
UNIVERSITIES
Key Points
— The balance between teaching and research
is an important consideration, especially for institutions and
individuals, however it is not a matter for the Research Councils
to comment on.— HEI receipts from Research Councils between
01/02 and 06/07 have shown the largest annual percentage real-terms
increase (7.0%) of any income stream; tuition fees and education
grants (6.5%) and overall Funding Council QR grants (5.2%) are
not far behind. A recent component of the RC increase has been
the uplift of £748 million (compared to the 2007-08 baseline)
provided to RCs in the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review to meet
the additional costs of paying 80% of full Economic Cost (fEC)
on research grants and fellowships.— RCUK believes that
the new research excellence framework must adequately recognise
and reward excellent research (including multidisciplinary research)
that achieves impact not only academically but also in terms of
the economy and wider benefits to society. RCUK supports a key
objective underpinning the proposed framework: the reduction of
administrative burdens on HEIs.— Whilst plagiarism at undergraduate
level represents a different and (from the evidence available)
larger problem from that at the research level, it is nevertheless
a critical factor in creating the culture of the organisation.
Making clear at the very earliest level therefore that plagiarism
is unacceptable is critical to ensuring a culture of good research
conduct (and the unacceptability of misconduct) throughout the
organisation.
— RCUK considers that the degree classification
system should not compromise the ability to select the best candidates
for doctoral research, and any changes to the system should factor
this in.
Introduction
1. Research Councils UK is a strategic partnership
set up to champion the research supported by the seven UK Research
Councils. RCUK was established in 2002 to enable the Councils
to work together more effectively to enhance the overall impact
and effectiveness of their research, training and innovation activities,
contributing to the delivery of the Government's objectives for
science and innovation. Further details are available at www.rcuk.ac.uk
2. This evidence is submitted by RCUK on behalf
of all Research Councils and represents their independent views.
It does not include or necessarily reflect the views of the Science
and Innovation Group in the Department for Innovation, Universities
and Skills. The submission is made on behalf of the following
Councils:
Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research
Council (BBSRC)
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
(EPSRC)
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
Medical Research Council (MRC)
Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)
3. All Research Councils have contributed
to the main text of this response.
4. RCUK welcomes the opportunity to provide
input and contextual information on areas that are relevant to
the Research Councils, and we have addressed specific points in
the next section.
RESPONSE TO
SPECIFIC POINTS
Levels of funding for, and the balance between,
teaching and research in UK HEIs, and the adequacy of financial
support for the development of innovative teaching methods and
teaching/research integration
5. The balance between teaching and research
is an important consideration, especially for institutions and
individuals, however it is not a matter for the Research Councils
to comment on.
Full Economic Costing
6. During the period 01/02 to 06/07 the
average annual increases for all components of HEI income (see
Figure 1) in 07/08 prices were as follows: Funding Council grants
including Quality Related (QR) £309 million (4.2% increase);
tuition fees, education grants and contracts £292 million
(6.5% increase); research grants and contracts including Research
Council (RC) grants £126 million (4.1% increase); other income
£188 million (5.1% increase); endowment and investment income
£12 million (3.7% increase). This represents a total real-term
increase of £928 million (4.9% increase) annually.
Figure 1
HESA FINANCE RETURNS FOR TOTAL HEI INCOME
AT CONSTANT 07/08 PRICES (USING THE TREASURY GDP DEFLATOR)
7. Both Research Council (RC) and Funding
Council (QR) research funding have increased significantly over
the past 10 years (see Figure 2). In 07/08 prices, the annual
increase has averaged £49.6 million for QR and £75.3
million for RCs. Since 01/02 the average annual increase has been
even higher at £77.5 million (5.2%)[213]
and £94.7 million (7.0 %) respectively, again in 07/08 prices.
Thus, whilst HEI receipts from Research Councils between 01/02
and 06/07 have shown the largest annual percentage real-terms
increase (7.0%) of any income stream; tuition fees and education
grants (6.5%) and overall Funding Council QR grants (5.2%) are
not far behind.
Figure 2
RESEARCH FUNDING TO UK HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTES
FROM FUNDING COUNCILS (QR) AND RESEARCH COUNCILS (RC) IN 07/08
PRICES (ADJUSTED USING THE TREASURY GDP DEFLATOR)
8. A recent component of the RC increase
has been the uplift of £748 million (compared to the 2007-8
baseline) provided to RCs in the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review
to meet the additional costs of paying 80% of full Economic Cost
(fEC) on research grants and fellowships (see Table 1). An uplift
of around £400 million was provided in the SR2003 period.
Table 1
FEC ADDITIONS TO CSR 07 ALLOCATION (DIUS
EVIDENCE TO HOC SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2008)
|
| 2008-09
| 2009-10 | 2010-11
| CSR07 Total |
|
| AHRC | 6,350
| 10,053 | 11,796
| 28,199 |
| BBSRC | 30,135
| 43,523 | 49,824
| 123,482 |
| ESRC | 15,236
| 22,005 | 25,190
| 62,431 |
| EPSRC | 73,479
| 106,124 | 121,486
| 301,089 |
| MRC | 29,079
| 41,998 | 48,077
| 119,154 |
| NERC | 14,154
| 21,810 | 25,413
| 61,377 |
| STFC | 12,139
| 18,487 | 21,474
| 52,100 |
| Total | 180,572
| 264,000 | 303,260
| 747,832 |
|
9. A review on the degree of uptake of fEC methodology
by all funders, and its impact on the HEI sector is currently
underway and will report on 13 April 2009.[214]
Research Teaching Linkages
10. RCUK has been aware of the debate in recent years
in the sector around Research Teaching Linkages and has engaged
in particular with the Higher Education Academy, Quality Assurance
Agency (Scotland) and the HEFCE-funded Centre for Excellence in
Teaching and Learning which is addressing undergraduate research.
The Research Councils have a direct interest in this topic, in
particular the extent to which undergraduates systematically gain
a better perspective and experience of research. It is not yet
clear to RCUK whether this awareness is being developed optimally
at present but it is clear that the benefit of a systematic approach
would be that the best graduates are: a) better placed to make
an informed choice and consider a research career; and b) more
likely to embark on higher research degree level training (primarily
doctoral). A further benefit would be that all graduates are more
aware of the contribution of research in relation to society and
are more likely to become informed participants in public engagement.
The suitability of methods of assessing excellence in teaching
and research and the impact of research assessment on these activities
11. RCUK is working closely with HEFCE on revised proposals
for the Research Excellence Framework (REF) in order to ensure
that the two arms of the Dual Support System operate together
efficiently and effectively. The RCUK response to the HEFCE consultation
on the REF can be found on the RCUK website.[215]
12. RCUK believes that the new assessment framework must adequately
recognise and reward excellent research (including multidisciplinary
research) that achieves impact not only academically but also
in terms of the economy and wider benefits to society. It is essential
that measures of impact relating to economic benefit, contribution
to public policy, development of practice in the public and private
sectors, and public engagement are included in the new assessment
approach.
13. RCUK has a very strong preference for a system of
assessment that is more uniform across the research spectrum than
that proposed in the consultation. This should draw on a full
range of discipline specific output metrics that measure research
impact across a range of dimensions including academic impact,
user-relevance and societal benefit. It should use "light-touch"
peer review to evaluate those aspects of research impact that
cannot be captured using qualitative metrics, and use expert opinion
to select and weight metrics on a discipline-by-discipline basis.
14. RCUK supports a key objective underpinning the proposed
framework: the reduction of administrative burdens on HEIs. In
order to achieve the maximum administrative efficiency RCUK will
work with HEFCE and the other Funding Councils in agreeing the
final set of metrics and also in the area of subsequent data collection,
so as to both minimise volume and frequency of data collection
from HEIs.
The extent to which student plagiarism is a problem in HE,
and the availability and effectiveness of strategies to identify,
penalise and combat plagiarism
15. RCUK recently published a Code of Conduct and Policy
on the Governance of Good Research Conduct for consultation, as
part of our commitment to the highest possible standards in good
research conduct and research integrity. The consultation document
can be found on the RCUK website.[216]
16. We consider that in addressing issues of good research
conduct, the Research Organisation (RO) should ensure that it
covers all matters set out in the Code of the Conduct, not only
those which appear the most serious. Issues such as minor plagiarism,
misrepresentation of credentials, partial misrepresentation of
findings and false claims of authorship, should be treated appropriately
as examples of unacceptable research conduct. RCUK expects all
ROs to be equally attentive to creating an over-riding culture
of best practice, as well as investigating major breaches.
17. Whilst plagiarism at undergraduate level represents
a different and (from the evidence available) larger problem from
that at the research level, it is nevertheless a critical factor
in creating the culture of the organisation. Making clear at the
very earliest level therefore that plagiarism is unacceptable
is critical to ensuring a culture of good research conduct (and
the unacceptability of misconduct) throughout the organisation.
The advantages and disadvantages of the UK's system of degree
classification and the introduction of the Higher Education Academic
Record
18. RCUK considers that the degree classification system
should not compromise the ability to select the best candidates
for doctoral research, and any changes to the system should factor
this in. The Burgess report which recommended the HEAR, and to
which RCUK contributed to, can be found on the UUK website.[217]
January 2009
213
Annual percentage increases are calculated using the slope of
the linear regression divided by the average income for each category
in constant 07/08 princes. Back
214
The "Alexander Review" (www.rcuk.ac.uk/reviews/fEC) Back
215
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/consultations/ref.pdf Back
216
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/reviews/grc/consultation.pdf Back
217
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Bookshop/Documents/Burgess_final.pdf. Back
| 
