Scottish universities face funding cuts

In the wake of the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), 'nearly a third of Scotland's universities will see their total funding cut in real terms for 2009-10' reports the THES.

In comparison with England which saw a 4 per cent cash increase and a 2 per cent real-terms rise when inflation was included, in Scotland, total funding increased 3.4 per cent in cash terms, equating to 1.4 per cent including inflation. This news comes after the Scottish Funding Council announced how the £1.14 billion allocated by the Scottish Government would be spread across 20 universities in 2009-10.

Stirling and Strathclyde have seen the biggest decrease in funding with falls of 1.6 per cent and 0.3 per cent respectively. This is 'despite receiving special moderation funding funding of £1.5 million and £1.3 million to soften the cuts' reports THES. The University of Dundee, Queen Margaret University and Glasgow Caledonian University have all seen below-inflation rises.

Within these allocation to Universities, some science areas fared better than others: Community-based medicine rose 102 per cent, physical sciences rose 31.5 per cent, hospital and laboratory medicine rose 30 per cent, while funding for biological sciences fell 19 per cent.

Read the THES article in full.

Will QR reinforce hierachies?

An article in the THES addresses the potential effects of the QR formula. The RAE findings showed that research excellence was widely spread across the sector, leading to speculation that large research-intensive universities was lose funding due an allocation formula which promises that research in the top three of four categories (4*, 3* and 2*) would be funded wherever it was found.

However, a decision was announced by HEFCE to ring-fence funding for science subjects (normally strongest in traditional universities) at the expense of other disciplines. This decision is expected to divert about £50 million away from arts-based subjects, where the research excellence of the post-1992 institutions is concentrated.

Professor Les Ebdon, chair of Million+ think-tank and vice-chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire is quoted as saying that, 'while his part of the sector was "very pleased" that HEFCE had agreed to fund excellence where it was found and he was expecting "significantly more" funding flow to Million+ universities than previously, he was disappointed that research of "national significance" (1*) will not receive any funding, given its importance to "UK PLC"'.

Read the THES article in full.

Mainstream QR funding quandary

Research Fortnight reports that HEFCE and Ministers face a tough decision on how to allocate the Mainstream QR funding of more than £900 million following the 2008 RAE.

In the 2008 RAE many universities with smaller volumes of research have succeeded in getting a relatively high percentage of their staff into categories 4* and 3*. Research Fortnight uses the University of Wolverhampton as an example: in 2001 the history department was rated 4 with everything else rated 3a or lower. However, in the 2008 RAE it submitted 151 staff in total and 30 per cent were categorised as 4* or 3*.

Success of this kind threatens to divert money from traditional recipients of Mainstream QR. The annual grant letter to HEFCE from DIUS setting out guidance is due this week. The HEFCE allocation announcement will be made on Thursday March 5

Research Fortnight (subscription required)

RAE 2009

Analysis done by the Times Higher Education suggests that the results of the 2008 RAE show no major changes to the overall research landscape, 'the biggest research-intensive-intensive universities are still clustered at the top of the table of excellence, followed by the smaller -research-intensive institutions'.

However, there were some significant ranking changes for individual institutions. Cardiff University dropped out of the top ten to 22nd place. THES reports that it may have sacrificed its quality rating my submitting a high volume of staff which may help when it comes to research funding allocation. Southampton fell from 11th to a tie at 14th while Hertfordshire rose from 93rd to 58th.

Research top 20: (Average research score on numbers - source The Guardian)

1. Cambridge 2,975
2. Oxford 2,959
3. London School of Economics 2,957
4. Imperial College 2,943
5. University College London 2,844
6. Manchester 2,823
7. Warwick 2,799
8. York 2,780
9. Essex 2,772
10. Edinburgh 2,747
11. Queen Mary and Westfield 2,726
12. St Andrews 2,724
13. Bristol 2,723
14. Durham 2,721
15. Southampton 2,715
16. Leeds 2,715
17. Sheffield 2,715
18. Bath 2,711
19. Lancaster 2,711
20. King's College London 2,693

The Guardian reports that 'some of the best universities have large numbers of low-performing researchers... About a third of research by the top six universities was rated two-star or one-star. Some 28% of Cambridge's researchers scored one and two stars, as did 34% of UCL's.' However, Cambridge has the highest proportion of outstanding research in the UK. Of the 2,040 staff whose work was submitted, 71% was deemed to be world-leading or internationally excellent.

Information about subsequent funding allocation will be released on 4 March 2009.

Read The Guardian article in full.

Read the THES article in full

Visit the official RAE site.

The Chosen Few

HEFCE has chosen 21 universities to test-drive the Research Excellence Framework. The institutions chosen are: Bath, Birmingham, Bournemouth, Cambridge, Durham, East Anglia, Glasgow, Leeds, Nottingham, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Southampton, Stirling, Sussex, as well as, Imperial College London, Institute of Cancer Research, London School of Tropical Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, The Robert Gordon University, the Royal Veterinary College and University College London.

These pilot institutions will provide Hefce with citations data for all staff eligible for inclusion in the 2008 RAE, regardless of whether the staff member was actually submitted. There are however, concerns that the institutions will treat the pilot as an opportunity to boost their standing.

Read the THES story in full

Evolution of REF continues

In response to the HEFCE consultation, two modifications are being made to the REF implementation plans:

1)The timetable for designing the new framework will be extended by 12 months.

2) The methodological differences between how science-based/non science-based subjects are assessed will be removed. All subjects will be assessed using a combination of metrics-based indicators (including bibliometrics) and input from expert panels.

The REF will be introduced after the 2008 RAE.

Biosciences Federation response to HEFCE consultation

Official statement on HEFCE website

RAE decision rationale to be destroyed

THES is reporting that the panels assessing academics' work as part of the RAE have been instructed to destroy all records of how decisions have been made. The move has been motivated by the desire to avoid post-RAE challenges to decisions through freedom of information or data protection laws. One panel member is quoted as saying, '"It is for own our good. The process could become an absolute nightmare if departmental heads or institutions chose to challenge the panels and this information was available"'.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=401501

REF to cause reshuffle?

Research undertaken by Cranfield University suggests that the new Research Excellence Framework could cause significant hierachial changes to the order currently generated from the Research Assessment Exercise.

The research council funded exercise took all research submissions for the 2001 RAE and determined citation counts using the methodologies laid out in the REF consultation. The study found that there is a good correlation in six out of 28 subjects, but 13 have a weak correlation and 9 showed no correlation at all. Individual universities' performance was examined in two science subjects (chemistry and a branch of engineering) and large differences were found.

In the in depth chemistry analysis, University of Surrey and Swansea University dropped dramatically, where as Northumbria University showed a great improvement.

HEFCE has dismissed the study and a spokesman is quoted by THES as saying, "It only takes into account only four publications per researcher; it makes no allowance for variation in citation between sub-disciplines; and it presents the outcomes as summary grades rather than quality profiles."