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