1 The Research Environment Post 2008 Some Possibilities Professor Peter Gilroy.

1

The Research Environment Post 2008

Some Possibilities

Professor Peter Gilroy

2

Advanced Organiser

1. 2001 - A Reminder

2. 2008 – Some Issues

3. The Bite of Selectivity

4. The REF and HEIs’ Responses

5. Playing Under the REF

6. Stop Press

3

(1) A Reminder

2001:Ratio of Grade:Funding revealed after the

exerciseHigh selectivity & broken promiseNon-linear funding algorithm

4

RAE 2001-expectation v reality

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3b 3a 4 5 5*

GRADE

£% per UoA

5

Result for UoA 16 Food Science & Technology

5/11 gain 4-5*46% (6) UoAs fall below funding

threshold £0 research fundingApprox 20 such departments in UK, so

15 (75%) = £0 research

6

Result for UoA 50 English L&L

63/89 gain 4-5*29% (26) UoAs fall below funding

threshold = £0 research funding

7

Result for UoA 68 Education

33/94 UDEs gain 4-5*11 did not submit Some slip from 5-465% (61) UDEs fall below funding

threshold = £0 research funding

8

(2) 2008 Some Issues:(a) Grades

How will the Quality Profile be Reported?Example:

This means – success or failure?

4* 3* 2* 1* U/c

5% 10% 30% 35% 20%

9

2008 Some Issues:(b) Money

Selectivity Will Bite Harder

0

20

40

60

80

100

Uc 1* 2* 3* 4*

GRADE

£% per UoA

10

(3) Some Issues:Selectivity Already Bites

HEFCE QR

Four HEIs receive 29% of

HEFCE research funds

Ten HEIs receive 50% of

HEFCE research funds

23 HEIs receive 75% of

HEFCE research funds

Research Council Funding

Three HEIs receive 25% of

Research Council funding

Eight HEIs receive 50% of

Research Council funding

18 HEIs receive 75% of Research

Council funding

(Sir David Watson, Missenden 2008)

11

Table 1 University summary research data aggregated by regional groups

% of research activity by regional group

Research Active staff

Research grant and contract income

Industrial research contract income

PhD awards

ISI research journal papers

London, East and South East 40.1 46.8 43.9 40.5 45.5

Rest of England 40.2 34.8 38.2 41.8 36.1

N Ireland, Scotland, Wales 19.7 18.4 17.9 17.7 18.3

(Sir David Watson, Missenden 2008)

12

Daily Telegraph

30 June

2004

(Sir David Watson, Missenden 2008)

13

Selectivity Re Education

61/94 UDEs currently have no QR/RAE 01 Funding (65%)

Only 1 Post-1992 UDE Received any QR/RAE 01 Funding

14

HEFCE FUNDING: R as % of T+R, 2001/02

Rank Institution Research % Rank Institution Research %

1 Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine 60.30% 21 University of Birmingham 36.00%

2 University of Oxford 59.40% 22 University of Nottingham 35.80%

3 University of Cambridge 59.10% 23 University of Essex 33.50%

4 University College London 59.00% 24 University of Leeds 33.40%

5 University of York 47.10% 25 University of Durham 33.20%

6 University of Southampton 45.40% 26 Goldsmiths College, University of London 32.00%

7 University of Manchester Institute of Science & Technology44.80% 27 University of Leicester 31.90%

8 University of Surrey 44.10% 28 University of Liverpool 30.70%

9 University of Reading 42.90% 29 University of Exeter 28.30%

10 University of Manchester 42.30% 30 Birkbeck College 26.40%

11 Royal Holloway, University of London 42.20% 31 Queen Mary, University of London 25.80%

12 King's College London 41.90% 32 Loughborough University 25.70%

13 University of Warwick 41.70% 33 Keele University 24.60%

14 University of Sheffield 40.90% 34 Aston University 22.50%

15 University of Bristol 39.70% 35 City University, London 21.60%

16 University of East Anglia 38.80% 36 University of Bradford 19.80%

17 University of Sussex 38.60% 37 Brunel University 17.60%

18 Lancaster University 36.30% 38 University of Kent at Canterbury 16.70%

19 University of Bath 36.20% 39 University of Hull 15.30%

20 University of Newcastle upon Tyne 36.10% 40 University of Salford 13.60%

(Sir David Watson, Missenden 2008)

15

HEFCE FUNDING: R as % of T+R, 2001/02

(Sir David Watson, Missenden 2008)

Rank Institution Research % Rank Institution Research %

41 University of Brighton 10.80% 61 University of Sunderland 2.60%

42 University of Portsmouth 8.20% 62 University of Central Lancashire 2.50%

43 De Montfort University 7.20% 63 Kingston University 2.30%

44 Oxford Brookes University 6.60% 64 Bournemouth University 2.20%

45 University of Surrey Roehampton 6.20% 65 University of Luton 2.10%

46 Sheffield Hallam University 5.20% 66 Coventry University 2.10%

47 Nottingham Trent University 5.20% 67 University of Northumbria at Newcastle 2.00%

48 Liverpool John Moores University 5.00% 68 University of Central England in Birmingham 1.70%

49 University of Hertfordshire 4.80% 69 Leeds Metropolitan University 1.60%

50 University of Plymouth 4.60% 70 Anglia Polytechnic University 1.60%

51 University of Gloucestershire 4.20% 71 Staffordshire University 1.50%

52 Manchester Metropolitan University 4.20% 72 University of Teesside 1.40%

53 London South Bank University 4.20% 73 University of Wolverhampton 1.30%

54 University of Huddersfield 4.00% 74 University of Derby 1.20%

55 Open University 3.90% 75 London Metropolitan University 1.00%

56 University of East London 3.90% 76 University of Lincoln 0.80%

57 University of the West of England, Bristol 3.80% 77 Thames Valley University 0.30%

58 Middlesex University 3.80%

59 University of Westminster 3.70%

60 University of Greenwich 3.20%

16

(4) The REF Pre-Consultation

Based on assertions re RAE 08 being: UnpopularExpensiveBurdensome

It will measure a narrow set of outputsWill prevent collaborationMetrics will be a major problem for social

science subjects (& their research councils)

17

Continued

There will be a greater work load (all outputs required, not just four)

Because of the 8-12 year citation window, a metrics approach will confirm the results of the 2001 RAE

Consequently there would be little significant change regarding funding from 2001

18

How will HEIs Respond?

This will depend on the Type of HEI

19

Type 1

Create institutional repositories

Encourage citation clubsBe very selective in identifying research

areas to support from central fundsDirect/manage tightly individuals’ research

activity (e.g. which journals to publish in)Employ a bibliometrics manager

20

Type 2

Develop business/enterpriseWork closely with regional agencies and

partnersRevise revenue sharing agreementsManage relatively loosely their

enterprising researchers

21

The Post RAE 2008/REF Research Scene

1. Research funding alone will not be able to support research activity (other than in a VERY small number of UDEs)

2. Therefore:a) A very small number (20?) of UDEs will be in

the select group who will receive QR funding to support their research activity

b) A number of UDEs will abandon research activity altogether, as they have done already

22

continued

c) A significant number of UDEs will follow their university’s strategy and mix-and-match QR and ER/3S income streams to support their research activity

d) Some may merge/collaborate with HEIs of different research standing

e) Some may work with local FE colleges as these develop their degree awarding portfolio

23

(5) What will it be Like to Work in the REF Context?

In the select group life will be very difficult – directed, controlled/managed tightly as the university’s mission narrows, with a great deal to lose

Where research is abandoned altogether life will return to the College of Education days

24

continued

Where research is sustained by Enterprise/3S activity researchers will have to become more aware of the need to work in an applied, knowledge-transfer driven, way

This will require refocusing of activity to create an academic who has enterprise and research skills

25

continued

For all, except the small number of

Type 1 HEIs and their UDEs

REF will become irrelevant &

Enterprise funding will become critical

26

(6) STOP PRESS(24TH April 2008)

HEFCE’s Research Director, Rama Thirunamachandran, leaves HEFCE

REF Consultation analysis releasedImplementation of REF to be put back by

12 months

27

Back to RAE 2008?The distinction between STEM and non-STEM

subjects will not be so clear cut –

‘For all subjects the assessment will include some combination of metrics-based indicators, including bibliometrics where appropriate, as well as input from expert panels.’

(John Denham, Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills.)

28

U- Turn?

‘The balance of metrics and expert input will vary according to the subject group’ (DIUS)

‘What we now seem to have …is peer review informed by metrics’ (Bahram Bekhradnia, HE Policy Institute, THES 24:4:08).

30th April: RAE Predictor via

RAE2008.com