Analysis of Researcher Development Reports 2011

Responses from institutions in receipt of substantial levels of Roberts funding often began by citing its effect on researcher development foundations/inputs: increasing (and in some cases establishing) provision for PGR/RS; broadening reach to otherwise disadvantaged groups of researchers; establishing staff posts and in-house expertise; enabling innovation and otherwise enhancing provision; improving co-ordination and internal collaboration (mentioning both within researcher development and, sometimes, across services for different staff/student groups).

 A further important theme was the impetus provided by Roberts funding in accelerating culture change, raising awareness and leading to changing attitudes towards researcher development across the RO from research students to senior managers.

A small minority of institutions discussed impact in terms of researcher outcomes, i.e. learning and behaviour change. The most frequently mentioned benefit relating to researchers themselves was the opportunity to learn from, and network with, peers from different disciplines, brought about by centralising provision and opening it to researchers across faculties/departments.

Most responses were framed at a fairly general level; some gave illustrative detail. Responses were extremely positive: the great majority reported that the Roberts funding had had significant impact within their institution.

Continuing institutional commitment to researcher development was linked to the need for ongoing, robust, evaluation and impact research.

What is the rationale for doing this?

How does it fit with institutional strategy?

What are the main features of the provision?

What are the aims and expected outcomes?

This analysis summarises responses to RCUK’s 2011 survey of research organisations (ROs) regarding the impact of Roberts funding to date, responses to changes in funding and strategies to 2013. It is designed to inform a 2013 review of the funding change and enable research organisations to compare their position with overall directions and context.

Are there any pre-requisites for engagement, e.g. levels of skill, years of experience, essential pre-activities?

How many participate in each 'activity'?

RCUK wrote to the 165 ROs in receipt of Roberts funding in 2010/11. There were 83 responses (50%), which included replies from all 20 members of the Russell Group, 16 of the 19 members of the 1994 Group, six members of Million+ and several specialist institutes. Responses covered all parts of the UK.

How do you monitor effectiveness?

Who do you seek feedback from?

Do you have benchmarks?

 A workshop at the Vitae Conference in September 2011 provided positive feedback.

The use of the analysis has not been monitored. 

Plans for a review, in 2013, of the impact of funding changes will be developed in the early part of 2013.