RC.47/10-11 (revised 3)
UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK
For the meeting of the Research Committee to be held on 13 September 2012
Guidelines on University Research Centres
In the pursuit of the University’s strategy to achieve absolute international excellence in research, specialist research centres provide opportunities for the University and departments to identify, develop and derive reputational, intellectual and/or financial value from collective expertise in new, emerging and collaborative projects not reflected within the standard University structures (e.g. Faculty, department, departmental research divisions/groups/themes). The defining feature of a University Research Centre (URC), is the significant added value that is created should it not exist, noting that this should typically be expected to be sustainable in the medium and/or long term (minimum of three to five years).
Those research groupings who obtain University Research Centre status will be permitted to publicly position the Centre in this way and will appear with in the University’s communications and information as such (e.g. publications and webpages listing the
University’s research centres will include ONLY approved University Research Centres).
T he term ‘Research Centre’ in these guidelines is used in a general sense and is intended to refer to the broad spectrum of Research Centres and Institutes active in the University, noting that only those that are approved by the Senate, via the Research Committee in consultation with the relevant Faculty Board(s), as meeting the broad criteria set out below will be classed as a University Research Centre.
1. The Establishment and Disestablishment of University Research Centres (URCs)
(a) The decision as to whether a University Research Centre should be established or disestablished is made by the Senate on the recommendation of the Research Committee, who will consult the relevant Faculty Board(s) prior to making its formal recommendation.
(b) Proposals for the establishment of new University Research Centres, or significant amendments to the constitutions of existing Centres, should be considered by the Research Committee which will put forward a recommendation to the Senate following consultation with the relevant
Faculty Board(s). Proposals should be submitted using the pro forma approved by the Research Committee, covering broadly the questions set out in Annexe 1.
(c) For proposals for minor amendments to a C entre’s constitution, a brief paper outlining the rationale for the amendments together with a copy of the
C entre’s constitution highlighting the changes (additions underlined and deletions struck through) should be submitted for consideration as in (b) above. In some cases, minor revisions may be considered by the Chairs of the Research Committee and the relevant Faculty Boards on their behalf, for recommendation to the Vice-Chancellor on behalf of the Senate, as deemed appropriate by the Chair(s) of Research Committee. Where the proposal is for significant change to an existing Centre, the relevant sections of the pro forma should be completed together with a copy of the centre’s constitution highlighting the proposed amendments (typically with additions underlined and deletions struck through) and submitted for consideration as set out in (b) above.
1

2.
3.
(d) Proposals for the disestablishment of a University Research Centre should also be considered by the Research Committee which will put forward a recommendation to the Senate following consultation with the relevant Faculty
Board(s). This ensures that all parties with an interest in a Centre have an opportunity to discuss the proposal and that the decision reached is recorded and accessible for reference purposes and for publications. The proposal to disestablish a University Research Centre should include a brief rationale as to why the Centre is being disestablished, together with a copy of the existing constitution of the Centre.
(e) Any proposals for the establishment, amendment, or disestablishment of
University Research Centres should outline, wherever possible, any consultation already undertaken in relation to the proposal and the strength of support given to the proposal by the relevant Heads of Departments, Faculty
Chairs, and/or Pro-Vice-Chancellors.
(f) Section 7 below outlines the common features of University Research Centres which should be considered prior to submitting a proposal for establishment, amendment or disestablishment of a University Research Centre and, in particular, when drafting or amending the constitutions of a University
Research Centre.
Categorisation of University Research Centres
(a) Bearing in mind that the main criteria is the added value brought by the
Centre, reputationally, intellectually and financially, each University Research
Centre is designated as being placed in one of the following categories:
(I) Independent University Research Centres
(II) Substantive University Research Centres
(III) University Departmental Research Centres
The detailed criteria and descriptors of these categories are as set out in
Annexe 3.
(b) When a new Research Centre is proposed to be established, a clear recommendation for which category it is to be placed initially within must be contained within the proposal.
(c) On an annual basis, Research Committee will consider a full list of Research
Centres, together with any necessary supporting information or proposals for amendment, to review the current categorisation and to amend if necessary.
A full review of the portfolio of University Research Centres, their categorisation and how they suppo rt the University’s research strategy will be undertaken on a three yearly basis as set out below.
The Review of University Research Centres
In addition to the specific framework of review for University Research Centres as set out here, University Research Centres may also be subject to review and/or reporting via other University processes to any or all of the relevant Head(s) of Department(s), their Advisory Board, the Academic Resourcing Committee, etc. All review processes should minimise the duplication of data collection and aim to utilise the information already collected and monitored via this process and, for instance, that of the Academic Resourcing Committee, wherever possible. Proposals to amend the
2

constitution or membership of any University Research Centre can be made throughout the year as relevant and do not have to wait for the process of annual or triennial review set out below.
Annual Review Process
(a) In order for relevant and up to date information to be available to the Research
Committee and the relevant Pro-Vice-Chancellors to inform the development of the University’s research strategy, as well as to maintain accurate records for publication in the University Calendar and elsewhere, a light-touch annual review process of all University Research Centres will be undertaken by the
Research Committee.
(b) In the Spring Term each year, Directors of University Research Centres will be asked if its aims are still accurate, whether there are any amendments that are necessary to the Centre’s constitution, the Directorship of the Centre and/or the membership of the Centre’s Advisory Board (where relevant) or indeed whether the Centre wishes its category to be retained or amended.
(c) In the Summer Term each year, any proposals for amendment to the constitutions or directorships of University Research Centres will be considered by the Research Committee following consultation with the relevant Faculty
Board(s) prior to any recommendation being made to the Senate.
(d) In the Autumn Term each year, a full list of University Research Centres, together with the category within which each has been classified, will be presented to the Faculty Boards for comment and the Research Committee for consideration.
Triennial Review Process
(e) All University Research Centres are reviewed every three years. This review is both to assess the sustainability of existing University Research Centres and to provide a mechanism for considering how the full portfolio of University
Research Centres is supporti ng the University’s research strategy and
(f) whether there are any key areas where greater co-ordination or development might be proposed. The Triennial Review process will be co-ordinated with the Annual Review process set out above.
In the Summer Term of the year preceding the Triennial Review, the
Research Committee agrees the pro forma review form to be used. The pro forma will include broadly the issues as set out in Annexe 2. This is then made available to all Directors of Research Centres and Heads of academic departments who are to be informed that the Triennial Review of University
Research Centres will be undertaken the following Autumn Term.
(g) In the Autumn Term of the year of the Triennial Review, all Directors of
University Research Centres in category II (Substantive University Research
Centres) and III (University Departmental Research Centres) are asked to complete the pro forma Triennial URC Review Form approved by the
University Research Committee.
(h) University Research Centres in Category I (Independent University Research
Centres) are reviewed by the Research Committee to assess how they support the University research strategy and as to their reputational and intellectual contribution, acknowledging that issues of financial sustainability are considered by the Academic Resourcing Committee (ARC). These category I Centres are to be requested to submit a relevant extract of the
3

4. information submitted to the Academic Resourcing Committee as part of the
Strategic Planning meetings (together with only any additional information that may be necessary for the Research Committee but not collected during the
ARC process).
(i) Where the Centre has an Advisory Board, it is expected that the Board consider and comment on the documentation submitted in the Triennial
Review process (either the pro forma or the ARC documentation) and for a brief report to be submitted summarising their views on current activities and future potential progress and development.
(j) University Research Centres in category III (University Departmental
Research Centres) are initially reviewed by the Faculty Board of which their
‘parental’ department is a member. Heads of Department will give initial consideration to the pro forma review forms for all of the University Research
Centres within their Department and will be requested to provide a brief summary as to how the Centres support the research strategy of the department and recommendations as to whether each Centre should be retained as a University Research Centre for a further period. All Head of
Department summary statements, together with the pro forma Triennial URC
Review Forms of the University Research Centres in category III which rest within departments in membership of a particular Faculty will be considered at the Autumn Term meeting of that Faculty Board. A summary report from each
Faculty Board, inclusive of the Board’s recommendation as to whether the
Centre should continue for a further three years or should be disestablished
(either with immediate effect or within a certain time period) and whether, if yes, the Centres should retain classification as category III, should be presented to the University Research Committee as soon as possible following the Faculty Board meetings.
(k) In the Autumn Term, the University Research Committee (or a subset of it) will consider all review documentation submitted to it by category I and II
University Research Centres and the summary reports provided by the
Faculty Boards for category III Centres. A summary report from the University
Research Committee, including recommendations for disestablishing, retaining, and/or amending any University Research Centres, will be submitted to the following meeting of the Senate (typically early in the Spring
Term) for consideration.
(l) University Research Centres may also be reviewed as part of the University’s other strategic review processes. The most up to date pro forma review document will typically be used in such reviews for category II and III centres, however, it is likely that category I University Research Centres will be reviewed separately and may need to provide additional documentation.
(m) In the event that a Centre does not submit its review documentation as part of the URC Triennial Review process at the time required, it will be assumed that this represents a recommendation that the Centre be disestablished and the
University Research Committee will advise the Senate accordingly.
Executive/Management Committee Structure
(a) A University Research Centre may contain provisions in its constitution for the establishment of a Management Committee or equivalent body, which is generally responsible for advising the Director on the more day-to-day activities of the Centre. The Management Committee would typically include members from all academic departments who have a significant financial or intellectual stake in the activities of the Centre.
4

5.
6.
(b) University Research Centres in category II (Substantive University Research
Centres) would typically have a formally constituted executive/management committee and those in category I (Independent University Research Centres) would always have one, typically chaired by the Director of the Centre.
(c) Additional conditions may be applied by the Academic Resourcing Committee where the Centre is dependent on substantial direct and indirect contributions from central University funds.
(d) For some Category I University Research Centres, it may be determined by the
Academic Resourcing Committee that University Regulation 1 on Departmental
Management Structures should apply.
Directors of University Research Centres
(a) Appointments of Directors of University Research Centres are made by the
Senate on the recommendation of the University Research Committee,
(excepting those Directors appointed by the Advisory Committee on the
Appointment of Heads of Department and those Centres subject to Regulation
30). For Category III Centres (Departmental), and for some Category II Centres
(Substantive), the position of Director is recommended to the University
Research Committee by the Head of the ‘parent’ department.
(b) Directors of Research Centres are appointed typically for three years from 1
September with an end of term of 31 August, appointments being renewable.
The expiry date for their term of office is noted within the appropriate section of the University Calendar.
(c) Proposals for amendment to the Directorship of a University Research Centre should be forwarded to the Secretary to the University Research Committee who will ensure consideration by the Committee and notify the Governance
Team of the outcome. Proposals for new University Research Centres and/or changes to the Directorship should clearly outline to whom the Director will report to. For Category I Centres, Directors will typically be in line with Heads of Academic Departments and will report to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, typically via the relevant Faculty Chair where the Centre is primarily based in one Faculty, or the relevant Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research), where the Centre crosses Faculty boundaries. For Category II Centres, the Directors will typically report to the relevant academic Head(s) of Department(s), but where this is not the case it should be clearly outlined in the constitution. All Directors of
Category III Centres will typically report to the Head of the ‘parent’ department.
(d) Centres, particularly those in Category I, are encouraged to appoint a Deputy
Director. University Research Centres would typically not have Co-Directors.
However, if Co-Directors are proposed, corresponding clarity of responsibilities must also be put forward for the consideration of the University Research
Committee in the approval process.
Advisory Boards
Proposers of University Research Centres should think carefully as to the desired benefits of having a formal Advisory Board associated with their Centre prior to proposing one is established within the Centre’s constitutional arrangements.
Advisory Boards are typically made up of a majority of members external to the
University. Typically, a significant investment in time and resource is required for an
5

Advisory Board to be effective and to properly engage members in the work of the
Centre and to capitalise and exploit their expertise. It would be expected that
Centres in category III (Departmental) would not typically have an Advisory Board.
Category II (Substantive) Centres may determine it is appropriate to propose one, and it is often the case that Category I (Independent) Centres engage an Advisory
Board. It is important here to note whether there are conditions of any external funding bodies of the Centre which require it to have an Advisory Board and/or an alternative form of external engagement with the work of the Centre.
Should an Advisory Board be desired, the following would apply:
(a) Advisory Boards should meet typically once or twice per year and, at minimum, once every three years prior to the Triennial Review of University
Research Centres.
(b) Each Advisory Board is required to make a brief report assessing the performance of the Centre for the purposes of the Triennial Review. The
University Research Centre pro forma review form will include a section for the presentation of the report from the Board, approved by the Chair of the
Advisory Board.
(c) Appointments to membership of Advisory Boards are made by the Vice-
Chancellor on behalf of the Senate in consultation with the Chair of the
University Research Committee, typically on the recommendation of the relevant Director of the Centre and/or relevant Head(s) of Department(s) and/or the Advisory Board. Each Advisory Board is required to nominate a
Chair who should not normally be a member of staff of the University.
Proposals for appointment to membership of an Advisory Board should include brief biographical details of the individual(s) being proposed and/or recommended for re-appointment and whether the support of the Chair of the
Advisory Board has been obtained.
(d) The term of office for a member of an Advisory Board is typically three years, commencing from 1 September and ending on 31 August, appointments being renewable. Arrangements for the nomination and appointment of members and the Chair of the Advisory Board should be clearly set out in the constitution of the Centre.
(e) While updates to Advisory Boards are sought on an annual basis during the
Annual Review of University Research Centres, Directors of Centres should update the Governance Team (typically via the Head of Governance Support
Services) should amendments be proposed at any stage so that the
University Calendar and other online information can be kept up-to-date.
(f) Initial approaches to prospective members of Advisory Boards should be made by Directors (or equivalent, as set out in the constitution of the Centre), but nominations for either membership or chairmanship should then be forwarded to the Governance Team to progress appropriate consideration as set out in (c) above.
(g) Advisory Board constitutions and membership are recorded in the University
Calendar. Research Centre Directors should ensure the Governance Team are made aware of any proposed or agreed changes on an annual basis as set out in section 3 of this document on Reviews of University Research
Centres.
(h) Directors will be informed of the outcome of any nominations made to membership of a University Research Centre Advisory Board so that an
6

7.
(i) appointment letter, outlining the period of office and key information about the
Board, can be sent to the appointee from the Centre. (A sample invitation letter will be available from the Governance Team.) Letters of appointment to
Chairs of Advisory Boards to University Research Centres will be sent out from the Vice-Chancellor, copied to the relevant Centre Director.
Directors of Centres should ensure that consideration is given to whether or not a further period of office should be recommended where individual members of Boards are coming to the end of their term of office. During the
Annual Review process, it will be assumed that members of Advisory Boards whose terms of office are not proposed to be renewed for a further period are stepping down from the Board. Directors of Centres are responsible for communicating with members of Advisory Boards whose term of office is coming to an end.
Constitutions of University Research Centres and Institutes
The constitution of a University Research Centre outlines its aims, constitution and membership, the procedure for the appointment of the Director and who the Director primarily reports to, and the terms of reference and the constitution of the
Executive/Management Committee and the Advisory Board where applicable. The following notes outline some common features of the constitution of University
Research Centres. Constitutions of all approved University Research Centres are published in the University Calendar, together with the membership of any approved
University Research Centre Advisory Boards. Requests for information or advice on the establishment or review of Centres should be directed to the Governance Team
(typically via the Head of Governance Support Services) and/or the Secretariat to the
University Research Committee in the first instance.
When drafting the constitution of the Advisory Board, consideration should be given to whether there are conditions of any external funders of the Centre which should be identified within the Centre’s constitution. Most if not all of the information included in the constitution should appear in the proposal documentation submitted on establishment, but may need to be amended from time to time.
Directors of Centres should inform the Governance Team should there be any proposed changes to the constitution of a University Research Centre. The
Governance Team will request any amendments to the approved information as it appears in the University Calendar via the Annual Review process.
(a) Aims: Although the aims of a Centre obviously depend heavily on its academic discipline a common aim is to establish close working relationships with academic staff in other departments or centres who are working in related areas. Intellectually, one or more aims could describe how it is hoped the work of the centre will be positioned within the discipline nationally/internationally.
One or more of the aims could also describe how ambitious the centre wished to be in obtaining external funding and in the development or growth of the particular area of research.
(b) Constitution/Membership: Typically, a Centre consists of members of academic staff who are involved in projects forming part of the Centre’s programme, research staff of the Centre and such other persons as may, from time to time, be approved by the Director of the Centre/Head of Department,
Management/Executive Committee or the Advisory Board of the University
Research Centre. University Research Centres can make recommendations for the conferral of Visiting and Associate Fellowships and other Honorary titles; for
Category III Centres (Departmental) these should be submitted via the relevant
Head of Department.
7

(c) The Director: The constitution will outline the procedures for the appointment of the Director, the length of the appointment and to whom the Director is responsible. Appointments of Directors of Research Centres are made by the
University Research Committee on behalf of the Senate, excepting those
Directors appointed by the Committee on the Appointment of Heads of
Department.
The Director may also be responsible for reporting on the
Centre’s activities and strategic direction to the Advisory Board of the Centre, if one is established. See section 5 above for further details.
(d) Executive/Management Committee: The Executive or Management Committee, where one is constituted, is generally responsible for advising the Director on the day-to-day administration and activities of the Centre, including teaching, research, new projects and issues of funding. See also Section 4 above.
University Research Centres in category II (Substantive) would typically have a formally constituted executive/management committee and those in category I
(Independent) would always have one. Please see section 4 above for further information.
(e) The Advisory Board: Where appointed, the Advisory Board is typically charged with maintaining a broad oversight of the work of the Centre, offering advice about its developing strategy, advising the University Research Committee on the work of the Centre and, in some instances, providing advice and assistance in the securing of funding necessary to support the activities of the Centre.
Membership usually includes a Chair (normally a member of the Board external to the University), the Director of the Centre, members of the
Management/Executive committee, the Head(s) of Department(s) in which the
Centre is based, other academic and research staff of the Centre and
University, and a majority of other members external to the University. See section 6 above for further information on Advisory Boards for University
Research Centres.
(f) Financial Responsibility: For Category III University Research Centres formally located within a parent Department, the Head of Department retains a formal responsibility for the financial operation of the Centre in line with the
University’s Financial Regulations, in consultation with the Director of the
Centre. For Category II University Research Centres, the key stakeholders who have financial responsibility for the Centre should be outlined, noting that this could be one parent department. For Research Centres that operate independently of the University’s departmental structure, the Director has formal responsibility to the Academic Resourcing Committee for the financial operation of the Centre in line with the University’s Financial Regulations. If the
Centre has an Advisory Board, typically the Board would have a role in providing strategic advice and guidance as to the financial sustainability of the
Centre.
8

UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK
Proposal for the Establishment of a New University Research Centre
Annexe 1
The below outlines the main issues to be considered prior to proposing the establishment of a University Research Centre. The University Research Committee is responsible for approving and maintaining a pro forma for proposing the establishment of a University
Research Centre which will include the relevant information necessary for consideration and will be updated from time to time as required. Typically, the draft constitution for the proposed Centre should be attached to the pro forma and information contained therein could be referenced where appropriate.
Aims and Objectives
(a) What factors led to the proposal to establish the Centre?
(b) What are the main aims of the Centre?
(c) How will the Centre support the University’s research strategy and/or the related departmental research strategy/strategies?
(d) What objectives does the Centre hope to have met in its first three years of operation?
(e) How will the Centre be distinct from a less formal research group? What added value will the establishment of a University Research Centre provide that could not be achieved through existing institutional and/or departmental structures and University
Research Centres?
Management and Staffing
(f) To which department(s) if any will the Centre be administratively and operationally linked? Which academic department(s) of the University have a known interest in the area of research which will be covered by the proposed Centre? What consultation has been undertaken with the academic departments who would have a particular interest in the Centre’s work?
(g) If the Centre is to have autonomous status, for instance with regard to making external grant and contract applications (as is the case for category I and II), which person within the Centre will have overall responsibility for the Centre’s work and all aspects of its operation? Who will the Director of the Centre formally report to?
(h) What is the proposed academic membership of the Centre and which department(s) do they belong?
(i)
(j)
How will the administration of the Centre be organised?
Is it proposed that the Centre should be able to appoint its own administrative or academic staff?
Funding
(k) Will the establishment of the Centre improve access to sources of funding? If so, explain why and how.
9

Activities
(l) Identify any activities which could not be carried out in the department(s) or other
University Research Centres if the newly proposed Centre did not exist.
(m) Will the Centre encourage interdisciplinary research which might not otherwise be carried out?
(n) Will the Centre encourage/aid postgraduate training and research? If yes, will it be contributing to another Centre or academic department’s activities and/or undertaking its own?
(o) Is it intended that the Centre will have any involvement in teaching and, if so, how will the Centre enhance the teaching programmes in the University? If yes, will it be contributing to another Centre or academic department’s activities and/or undertaking its own?
For either (m) or (n) above, if it is proposed to undertake its own, the Centre should acknowledge the responsibility for abiding by the University teaching quality and assurance framework and the required student administration and support processes.
(p) Will the Centre be involved in the running of conferences in its research field?
(q) How will the work of the Centre be disseminated?
Categorisation
(r) Considering the answers to all of the above, in which category (I, II or III) is the
Centre proposed to be classed? (See Annexe 3 for the full description and criteria for each category).
10

Annexe 2
UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK
Reviews of Research Centres
Criteria to be used by University Research Committee when reviewing Research Centres
On a triennial basis, a brief self-assessment should be completed by each University
Research Centre. Where the Centre has a formal Advisory Board, the Board should be involved in reviewing or commenting on the self-assessment. A pro forma will be agreed by the University Research Committee to be completed by all University Research Centres (see section 3 of the Guidelines on University Research Centres). For those Centres reporting on an annual basis directly to the Academic Resourcing Committee’s Strategic Planning
Meetings, the submission of the appropriate extract of that documentation could replace the need to complete this separate self-assessment pro forma. Research Centres may be requested to provide further information to the Academic Resourcing Committee, the
University Research Committee and/or other University bodies should consideration of a particular issue need to be given outside of this timetable.
The information provided on the pro forma self-assessment will include broadly the following:
(a) Broad aims of the centre: listing the aims of the centre as set out in the approval documentation and/or constitution, highlighting where any amendments are proposed
(striking through deletions and underlining additions).
(b) Objectives, Plans and Aspirations: giving a succinct description of the broad plans and aspirations for the centre for the coming years, including consideration of the following:
(i) The extent to which the previously agreed aims/objectives of the Centre have been met.
(ii) What the current objectives for the centre are, giving approximate timescales on achieving them?
(c) Leadership or significant membership changes: highlighting whether there has been or will be a change in the Director of the Centre or any other key staffing changes that could impact the Centre
’s ability to achieve its aims and objectives, providing the number of members of the centre and whether this has significantly increased or decreased over the last two years.
(d) Current Performance:
(i) Briefly, how the aims and objectives are supporting the achievement of departmental and/or University research strategies. In doing so, the following might be considered:
(A) The distinctive research output which the Centre has produced and whether this has increased or decreased over the review period.
(B) How this research output has been disseminated.
(C) Evidence which can be given of the influence and/or impact the of the work of the Centre.
(D) The current situation with regard to external research funding in the Centre and whether the position has changed over the review period.
11

(E) The Centre’s involvement in scholarly conferences.
(ii) Briefly, describe the Centre ’s involvement in any teaching or training activities, noting that only very limited information is required as this will predominately be addressed as part of the University’s agreed processes for reviewing degree courses.
12

Annexe 3
UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK
Criteria for Categorisation of University Research Centres
This should be read in conjunction with the framework and broader criteria for what constitutes a University Research Centre as set out in the Guidelines on University
Research Centres.
Category I: Independent University Research Centres

Centres in this category are often interdisciplinary in nature.

Centres in this category operate under their own cost-code, typically have the autonomy to appoint staff and are subject to oversight by the Academic Resourcing
Committee, who will consider the C entre’s level of delegated responsibility (e.g. replacement of academic staff and appointment of administrative staff).

Centres in this category can provide evidence that they will be/are sustainable in the medium to long term (minimum of 5 years), both in intellectual and financial terms and with regard to critical mass of academic support and activity.

Centres in this category appl y for research grants in the Centre’s name and cost-code.

New Centres in this category are expected develop a significant external profile;
Existing Centres in this category should provide evidence that they have an external profile similar to that of a an academic department, noting that sustainability will be judged in a similar way to that of academic departments within the context of strategic and financial planning.

Final approval as to whether a University Research Centre rests within this category will be made by the Academic Resourcing Committee on the recommendation of the
University Research Committee.

Centres in this category are subject to monitoring and review by the University
Research Committee in relation to how their aims/objectives and profile/reputation support the University’s research strategy.

Centres in this category may propose and be the host department of postgraduate training and teaching courses, subject to the appropriate University approval processes.
Category II: Substantive University Research Centres

Centres in this category may be interdisciplinary in nature.

Centres in this category can provide evidence that they will be/are sustainable in the medium term (minimum of three years), both in intellectual and financial terms and with regard to critical mass of academic support and activity.

Centres in this category have the autonomy to apply for research grants in the
Centre’s name and may be able to appoint administrative staff to the centre if appropriate approval is sought.

New Centres in this category are expected to attract significant additional research income for their parent department(s); Existing Centres in this category should provide evidence that they attract significant additional income as a result of their existence
(i.e. income that a Department could not otherwise attract).

New Centres in this category are expected to develop an external profile; Existing
Centres in this category should provide evidence that they have an external profile, independent to that of the Department(s) in which they sit.
13


Centres in this category may contribute to postgraduate training and teaching courses of other academic departments, teaching centres/units, and/or category I University
Research Centres, but would not typically host their own.
Category III: University Departmental Research Centres

Centres in this category are located within a ‘parent’ academic department and the proposal to establish or disestablish a Centre in this category should have the full support of the relevant Head of Department.

Centres in this category are typically financially dependent on th e ‘parent’ academic department for their existence.

Centres in this category apply for grants under their d epartment’s name and any associated academic and administrative staff will typically be appointed to the ‘parent’ or associated department not the centre itself.

The Head of Department is formally responsible for all Research Centres within this category that are located within his/her department and the Director of the Centre typically reports to the respective Head of Department.

New Centres in this category are expected to attract additional research income for their parent department, and potentially other associated departments, and have a positive reputational impact for the relevant department(s) and/or the University;
Existing Centres in this category should provide evidence that they attract additional income as a result of their existence (i.e. income that a Department could not otherwise attract).

New Centres in this category are expected to develop an external profile; Existing
Centres in this category should provide evidence that they have an external profile, independent to that of the Department in which they sit.

Centres in this category can provide evidence that they will be/are sustainable with regard to critical mass of academic support and activity.

Contributions to postgraduate training and teaching courses of other academic departments, teaching centres/units and/or category I University Research Centres from staff in this category would typically be allocated within the respective academic department.
As at 27 June 2012
14