Schizophrenia and the Funding of Regional Universities

Hull: one of 'Wave 2 Growth Hubs'

In February the Government announced that it was offering £32m to 20 regional cities in the UK to support economic growth and development. The cities, which included areas as diverse as Milton Keynes, Hull, Stoke and Sunderland, were offered the funding in return for a promise to 'improve a serious local economic problem'.

The REF and Edited Books

There was an interesting piece by Prof Andy Miah on the Guardian Higher Education Network blog last week, which looked at what academics should be doing at this late stage to bolster their outputs for the REF.

Prof Miah started by recognising two points: firstly, time is short, so there's a limit to what you can still publish; and secondly, there is wide variance between disciplines as to what is regarded as prestigious or good. Journal articles are regarded much more favourably in the STEM subjects, for instance, than they are in the Humanities, where there is more of a tradition of monographs.

The focus of his piece, however, was edited books, which he described as 'the biggest loser' in RAE2008, when very few were submitted. This was because editing does not equate to research, but also because there was some ambiguity over the peer review of book chapters, and the difficulty in getting book chapters cited. But these volumes are not without worth: they offer a useful way for early career researchers (ECRs) to be published, as the process is often more flexible and supportive.

Will this mean, therefore, that there is a certain amount of discrimination against ECRs in REF2014? On balance I think not: whilst this is the implication of Miah's argument, most ECRs worth their salt will have been able to publish up to 3 outputs within the time, without having to factor in a book chapter. From the preparatory REF meetings I've been part of it's certainly not been to big an issue. However, it is worth highlighting it: the more entrenched these assessment processes become, the more they will affect behaviour, and the more likely that a time will come when edited volumes are a thing of the past.

That's fine if that's what everyone wants, but we shouldn't stumble into it blindly. If the academic community and the publishing industry see the worth of edited books then they need to make sure that some allowance is made for them in the REF. Otherwise academics will continue to prioritise journals and monographs, and edited books will wither on the vine.

REF: the Plot Thickens

With the publication of the panel assessment criteria last week, we now have a clearer idea of what the REF is going to look like. And it's not a level playing field for all the panels. Research Professional did a good run down of how it differs between each, and here it is, in summary:

The Thorny Issue of Citations

Remember when the REF was just a glimmer in David Sweeney's eye? When all the talk was of bibliometrics and light touch review? Hah! Well, as we've known for some time, you can forget all that. The REF looks pretty much like it's the RAE with Impact, and is peer review-centric. In fact, citations are only going to be allowed in a minority of the 36 sub-panels, as follows:

• Panel A (Life Sciences): will allow citation data in all sub-panels;
• Panel B (Physical Sciences): will only allow citation data in sub-panels 7 (earth and environmental sciences), 8 (chemistry), 9 (physical sciences) and 11 (computer science)
• Panel C (Social Sciences): will only allow citation data in (some of) sub-panels 17 (geography, environmental studies and archaeology) and 18 (economics and econometrics). No panels will use journal impact factors.
• Panel D (Humanities): no citation data allowed.

Put Out by Outputs

As well as variation on citations, there's a wide variety on what's deemed acceptable as assessable outputs. 'RePro' (as no-one but me calls Research Professional) gives the example of the physical sciences vs life sciences. Life sciences are strictly 'old skool', and you can only include 'edgy' outputs like textbooks, databases or abstracts “exceptionally”, 'where they embody original research'. The physical sciences, on the other hand, are much more 'new wave', and you can submit patents, book chapters, computer algorithms and software as evidence of research output, alongside peer-reviewed publications.

The Impact of Impact

Finally, it's our old friend Impact. Generally there's a broadbrush consensus on what impact is all about, and the definition is wide enough to allow for a fairly catholic understanding of it. However, there is a minor spat in the offing when it comes to the impact of teaching. Within Panel B, research impact can include actions that have an effect on teaching or students where they extend significantly beyond your institution. However Panel C will not accept such heresy, and you can't include examples of this in your submission to them.

So, interesting times ahead. Thanks to - ahem - 'RePro' for their overview of the HEFCE docs. You can have your say on them by responding to HEFCE's consultation before 5 October.

Phil Willis: Concentrate Research

The former Chair of the Commons Science and Technology Committee, Phil Willis, has been sounding off in the Times Higher about the future of research in the UK, suggesting that the country needs a "real gloves-off rationalisation of university research".

Echoing the implied (or, in some cases, explicit) call for concentration in the Research Council's Delivery Plans, he suggested that research should be focused in 'no more than 30' universities. The rest should retire gracefully from research, and become US-style liberal teaching only community colleges.

Whilst Willis does not weild as much power and influence as he did as an MP, these are still worrying thoughts. The RAE2008 made positive strides in identifying and rewarding excellent research, wherever it was found. Why penalise pockets of excellence in (let's be frank) non-Russell Group institutions? In some areas of hard science, there may be a case to be made for economies of scale and the sharing of large - and expensive - equipment and infrastructure. But in the social sciences and humanities? Hmm.

Moreover, the concensus is that excellent research informs and drives excellent teaching. Separating the two creates a two tier system, consigning the majority of students to second class teaching, removed from the cutting edge of research, and the elite minority to the ivory towers of excellence.

Separating the two is, I think, a retrograde step. For students at institutions like Kent, on the cusp of that 'no more than 30', as well as all those further down the league tables, there are uncertain times ahead.

Russell Group: Give us the Cash

In a news item that must match 'The Sun Rose this Morning' for it's shock value, the Chair of the Russell Group, and VC of a Russell Group university, said that the REF should ensure that QR funding is concentrated on Russell Group universities. Professor Michael Arthur used a HEPI conference last week to state his view. Criticising the outcome of RAE2008, which funded excellent research wherever it was found, he said that "if we carry on with that trend ... and take money away from those universities that have been highly successful in the past, we end up with a progression to mediocrity."

He went on: "How many well-funded research universities do we need? I don't believe it is 169. I'd like to suggest it is somewhere between 25 and 30." How many universities are there in the Russell Group? 20. We wait to see who the lucky 5-10 outsiders will be who are invited to share King Arthur's feast.

Ref Consultation Document Published

Hefce have published a consultation paper on the successor to the RAE, the Research Excellence Framework (Ref). ‘Impact’ is going to play a large part in the assessment, and the number of units of assessment have been drastically cut. A summary of the proposals is reported in Research Fortnight , and the full consultation can be seen here.