Breadcrumbs
- Home
- Research staff
- Research staff blog
- A view from the 'islands'
A view from the 'islands'
19 October 2009
By Mike Chopra-Gant
We hear a great deal about research in the larger, research-intensive universities: who ranks highest in which field? How much money do they have to support their research environment? How they can retain the ‘critical mass’ of top quality researchers apparently needed to maintain their position as producers of ‘world leading’ research? But, as RAE 2008 demonstrated it isn’t only the usual suspects who are capable of producing research of the highest standard. So how convincing is the ‘critical mass’ argument in the light of evidence from the RAE that some of the universities that have ‘critical mass’ have performed little better, in certain areas, than newer institutions that definitely do not (the so-called ‘islands of excellence’ that give their name to this post)? This question is of crucial importance now that pressure is growing for future research funding to be based on a model that replaces the relative transparency of RAE 2008 with a version of the biblical prescription that ‘for he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath’.
As an inhabitant of one of those ‘islands’ I am, of course, not an disinterested commentator, but there are bigger issues at stake than simply who gets to stay in the fancy conference hotel, and who in the shabby B&B. Maybe the assumption that ‘critical mass’ is necessary is misguided and produces a research environment in the UK universities that is, shall we say, sub-optimal. Maybe research quality and impact would be enhanced by organising of the nation’s research differently, encouraging the sort of collaboration between universities that would improves the UK’s prospects of being a world leader in research in the future.
Matthew Salois20 October 2009 at 12:52 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Thank you Mike for bringing the RAE into the discussion. Your post prompted me to read more into the RAE and what it means for universities. This may be common knowledge for most UK contract researchers, but being from the US the RAE is quite new to me. What I found was not entirely encouraging. While many studies have shown improvements in research performance since the inception of the RAE, I was quite disheartened to learn that (from Wikipedia) that "publications by researchers on fixed term contracts are excluded from the Assessment Exercise unless those publications can be credited to a member of staff who is eligible for the RAE." There is a great article in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/dec/19/rae-researchers-ignored) going into further detail. In relation to the points you raised, the so-called "island institutions" may be unfairly affected to the extent they rely more upon contract researchers. My feeling is that the current rules in the RAE that ignore publications by contract researchers is not only unfair, but also sends the message that work by contract researchers is less meaningful. What are your thoughts on this?
Mike Chopra-Gant20 October 2009 at 02:02 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Matthew, thanks for the response. The 2008 RAE was the last of its kind. It's been replaced by the Research Excellence Framework (REF), and at this stage I don't think many people know precisely what form the REF is going to take. Continuing discussion about the RAE is only really relevant, therefore, to the extent that the discussion informs the debate about the REF. Still, a discussion worth having, I feel. I think the Wikipedia account may over simplify things (surprise, surprise). As I understood it, the RAE allowed institutions to submit contract staff as long as the number of hours they worked at the institution exceeded a minimum figure. Having said that, it's quite possible that individual institutions took tactical decisions to exclude contract staff (probably more likely in the case of contract lecturers who also publish rather than those specifically engaged to undertake research but please correct me if I am wrong about this). The issue, I think, is not so much that new universities rely more heavily on contract staff. I think that extensive use of contract staff is quite normal across the full spectrum of universities. For me the issue is more that the ink was hardly dry on the RAE before the minister (at the time), John Denham, was announcing strategic decisions to concentrate funding for research in the elite, research-intensive universities, regardless of the quality of research being undertaken outside that small part of the sector (see this article: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=405508). If that happens, serious damage will be done to academic research in the UK universities as a whole. But despite the apparent finality of Denham's proclamation there is still everything to play for. Denham has left that post; possibly there will be an entirely new government after the next election: and the parameters of the REF are still being decided. There is still a chance to contribute to the debates about this important area. I think contract staff have a rough ride for all sorts of reasons. It's very unfair and, I think, short sighted. If the REF effectively excludes a large part of the university sector, that will only magnify this problem - excluding all staff in a lot of instutions - and, in the long term, damage the research environment in the UK.
Mike Chopra-Gant20 October 2009 at 02:53 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Matthew, thanks for the response. The 2008 RAE was the last of its kind. It's been replaced by the Research Excellence Framework (REF), and at this stage I don't think many people know precisely what form the REF is going to take. Continuing discussion about the RAE is only really relevant, therefore, to the extent that the discussion informs the debate about the REF. Still, a discussion worth having, I feel. I think the Wikipedia account may over simplify things (surprise, surprise). As I understood it, the RAE allowed institutions to submit contract staff as long as the number of hours they worked at the institution exceeded a minimum figure. Having said that, it's quite possible that individual institutions took tactical decisions to exclude contract staff (probably more likely in the case of contract lecturers who also publish rather than those specifically engaged to undertake research but please correct me if I am wrong about this). The issue, I think, is not so much that new universities rely more heavily on contract staff. I think that extensive use of contract staff is quite normal across the full spectrum of universities. For me the issue is more that the ink was hardly dry on the RAE before the minister (at the time), John Denham, was announcing strategic decisions to concentrate funding for research in the elite, research-intensive universities, regardless of the quality of research being undertaken outside that small part of the sector (see this article: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=405508). If that happens, serious damage will be done to academic research in the UK universities as a whole. But despite the apparent finality of Denham's proclamation there is still everything to play for. Denham has left that post; possibly there will be an entirely new government after the next election: and the parameters of the REF are still being decided. There is still a chance to contribute to the debates about this important area. I think contract staff have a rough ride for all sorts of reasons. It's very unfair and, I think, short sighted. If the REF effectively excludes a large part of the university sector, that will only magnify this problem - excluding all staff in a lot of instutions - and, in the long term, damage the research environment in the UK.
Sarah Davies20 October 2009 at 06:36 PM
permalinkreport this comment
This is interesting. Coming from a fairly 'elite' - though not Russell Group - institution, my impression has been that people here have been going into a flat spin over their fall in QR cash - due to the 'evening out' of excellence, and therefore funding, that the RAE indicated and which the THES article Mike cited mentioned. Possibly this kind of panic is what's driving Denham and his advisers as the Russell Group etc try to protect their income. The REF of course is still very much up for grabs - see the consultation at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2009/09_38/ (and a friendly version at http://writetoreply.org/refconsultation/). One other thing it looks like is going to be added into the mix is a new emphasis on 'impact' - though exactly what that means is still a fairly open question.