DIUS Research Report 08 08
ISBN 978 1 84478 996 2
© Sheffield Hallam University 2008
The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.

Summary.....................................................................................................................3
1 Introduction...............................................................................................................5
2 Methods....................................................................................................................5
3 Responses................................................................................................................6
4 Main findings from the survey
4.1 Strategic approach......................................................................................8
4.2 Operational structures and processes .....................................................16
4.3 Recording information about international research collaborations..........29
4.4 The uses and distribution of information...................................................37
5 Conclusions............................................................................................................40
Appendix I Introductory letter to HEIs........................................................................43
Appendix II Further Tables ........................................................................................44
Appendix III Questionnaire .......................................................................................88
1

2

The aim of this research was to reveal the extent to which HEIs monitor and coordinate research collaboration between their institutions and those abroad, to identify institutional roles or committees that monitor and coordinate such international research links, and to identify the processes that monitor or record such links.
This report is based on the findings of a survey of all 165 HE institutions in England,
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales in 2007. There were 127 useable responses which is 77% of all HEIs. There was little reportable variation between the responses from individual countries (mostly because there were insufficient data from Scotland,
Northern Ireland and Wales) however analysis by type and size of institution revealed variable patterns of activity.
There was a very high level of response from both pre- and post-92 HEIs of over
80% although of the specialist institutions/colleges of higher education, only two thirds responded to the questionnaire. Large and medium HEIs (92% and 80%) were far more likely to respond than small HEIs (59%).
HEIs have a considerable amount of international research collaboration (IRC) across all the identified forms of IRC, for example three-quarters of responding HEIs have international research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies or by
UK public bodies. In addition, 86% of HEIs report unfunded research collaborations with overseas academic colleagues, often involving postgraduate research where students are located overseas and unfunded research where individual academics collaborate with overseas colleagues. For many institutions, particularly the smaller
HEIs and those specialist institutions, unfunded international research collaboration may be encouraged to raise institutional prestige, improve individual academic reputations or to foster the development of funded IRC in the future.
For all HEI types, pre-92 and large HEIs are most likely to engage with IRC. Almost all HEIs have a research strategy, two thirds have an internationalisation strategy but less than half have a combined strategy. Internationalisation seems to be more important to pre-92 institutions than other types of HEI and they are more likely to have a strategy that combines internationalisation and research.
Most HEIs have a Pro-Vice Chancellor (PVC) responsible for research and over half have a PVC responsible for research and internationalisation, but only a quarter have PVCs responsible for both areas. Pre-92s are more likely to have PVCs responsible for internationalisation and Specialist Institutions/General Colleges
(SI/GC) least likely to have PVCs responsible for research. Smaller and specialist institutions are more likely to centralise responsibility.
The larger the institution the more likely it is to have committees at school, department or faculty level dealing with research and to have separate committees dealing with postgraduate research, and that this is general across HEI types. Most such committees do tend to deal with IRC to some extent.
3

The recording of IRC information is more likely to occur at central level if it is related to income; otherwise, IRC information is likely to be held at more local levels. This is reflected in the recording of information on unfunded research collaborations, which is recorded more carefully by specialised institutions than other kinds.
Less than half of responding HEIs hold information on where international research collaborations are taking place centrally; only a quarter collate and report on such information and a fifth do not record the information at all. However, this information is generally retained at school, department or faculty level where it is not held centrally.
4

This report looks at the responses to a survey of institutions' processes for monitoring and co-ordinating international research collaboration (IRC). The overarching aim of the research is to reveal the extent to which HEIs monitor and coordinate within their own institutions any research collaboration that takes place between the institution and those abroad. Our survey was designed to identify in institutions roles or committees that have oversight of and coordinate international research links, and processes that monitor or record such links. The data were analysed against two main variables relating to UK higher education institutions
(HEIs), type of institution, and size of provision. HEIs are classified by 'type' according to whether they existed as universities prior to 1992, when polytechnics became universities, whether they acquired university status post 1992, and whether they are specialist institutions or general colleges of higher education. On tables these variables appear as Pre-92, Post-92 or SI/GC. The following ranges of full-time equivalent (FTE) student population are used to determine institutional size: small, up to 7999 students; medium, 8000 to 19,999 students; large, over 20,000 students.
Table i provides some evidence for a correlation between type and size of institutions with TNE provision. There are no specialist institutions/colleges that are large in size and only four that are medium sized, although there are institutions of each type in all of the other size categories. The majority of post-92s are large
Table i - Type by size of institution
Type of HEI
Post 92
Large HEIs
29
Medium sized
HEIs
12
Small HEIs
5
Total
46
Pre 92
SI/GC
Total
25
0
54
25
4
41
8
19
32
58
23
127
The methodology was a mix of qualitative and quantitative techniques. A qualitative methodology was used to inform the research: this aimed to ensure that the research reflected the concerns and interests of HEIs, rather than the assumptions of the research team. Via a pre-pilot, interviews were conducted that were designed to inform the research team about institutional practices, procedures and issues. The main study then was quantitative in nature, using information gleaned from the prepilot to design the questionnaire.
Between January and March 2007 the research team constructed contact lists and also developed and trialled the research instruments (e.g., e-mail requests; introductory letter).
5

During March and April 2007 a pre-pilot and piloting stage was conducted whereby visits were paid to institutions or telephone contact was made, with some interviews conducted with the purpose of clarifying issues. One Welsh, one Northern Irish, one
Scottish and five English HEIs were identified to participate in the pilot. Following this stage, there was a pilot stage to test the survey questionnaire and online versions.
The survey was issued in May 2007 and follow-up letters and emails were issued in the normal manner along with follow-up telephone calls to maximise the response rate. In the event the research team received 132 responses from a total of 165 HEIs in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (a response rate of 80%). The research team actually managed to gain responses from all 165 institutions: the 33
HEIs that we do not have any data for all declined to take part even when follow up requests were made. For some this may be because they do not engage in IRC, for others it may be that they do not wish to report on any IRC that they do engage in.
Paper questionnaires were scanned into Teleform software and analysed using
SPSS. Where data were provided by completion of the online questionnaire the data were automatically entered into the SPSS database. Of the 132 responses 84 (64%) were on paper and 48 (36%) submitted electronically. Qualitative responses on paper questionnaires were typed and manually coded into themes.
Of the 132 institutions submitting data, information relating to the country, type and size of institution is missing from five responses. Therefore, throughout this report while overall totals may add up to 132, totals by country, size and type will only total
127 which is 77% of all HEIs in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
This section looks at the characteristics of responding institutions. Table 1 shows responses by UK Country. Note that The Open University (OU) counts as one UKwide institution for the purposes of this research
6

Table 1 - Responses by Country
England
Scotland
Wales
Northern
Ireland
Open
University
Total
All
Institutions
N
129
19
12
4
1
165
All
Institutions
%
78
12
7
2
1
100
Response rate N
99
15
8
4
1
127
Response rate
%
77
79
75
100
100
77
There was a very high level of response from both pre- and post-92 HEIs of over
80% although of the specialist institutions/colleges of higher education, only two thirds (66%) responded to the questionnaire (Table 2).
Table 2 - Responses by type of institution
Valid Pre
Post
Missing
SI/GC
Total
Total
Responses Response %
58
46
23
127
5
132
44
35
17
96
5
132
Total of Type
69
56
35
4
100
% of Type
84
82
66
Large and medium HEIs (92% and 80%) were more likely to respond than small
HEIs (59%, Table 3).
Table 3 - Responses by size of institution
Valid Large
Medium
Small
Missing
Total
Total
Response Response %
54
41
32
127
5
132
41
31
24
96
5
132
Total of Size
59
51
54
4
100
% of Size
92
80
59
7

Pro Vice-Chancellor responsibilities
The research sought to establish ultimate responsibilities in this area and in particular to see how far ultimate research responsibilities are separate from or linked to responsibilities for internationalisation. Respondents were able to select multiple options so the categories were not mutually exclusive. A respondent might, therefore, indicate that they have a research PVC and that they also have a PVC responsible for research and internationalisation. Note that in all the following tables the total response rate for each question may vary so the N and the percentage refer to the number of respondents that answered yes to the question.
Overall 25% of responding HEIs have a Pro Vice-Chancellor (PVC) responsible for both research and internationalisation; almost 90% have a PVC responsible for research and just over half have a PVC responsible for internationalisation (Table 4).
The proportions are similar for each country (Appendix Table 1).
Table 4 - PVC responsibilities: overall
PVC responsible for both research and internationalisation
PVC responsible for research
PVC responsible for internationalisation
N
25
101
60
%
25
88
55
Total
99
115
109
Pre-92 HEIs, post-92 HEIs and SI/GCs are equally likely to have a PVC responsible for both research and internationalisation, however pre-92s are more likely to have a
PVC responsible for internationalisation (63%) than the other HEI types and SI/GCs are least likely to have a PVC for research (70%, Table 5).
Table 5 - PVC responsibilities by type
PVC responsible for both research and internationalisation
PVC responsible for research
PVC responsible for internationalisation
N
Pre-92
%
10 26
46
31
92
63
Post-92
N %
9 25
36
18
90
50
N
SI/GC
%
5
14
10
26
70
50
Large HEIs are least likely to have a PVC with joint responsibility for research and internationalisation and most likely to have separate PVC with responsibility for research and internationalisation (Table 6).
8

Table 6 - PVC responsibilities by size
PVC responsible for both research and internationalisation
PVC responsible for research
PVC responsible for internationalisation
N
Large
%
9
43
27
24
94
61
Medium
N %
8
33
18
29
92
55
7
20
14
N
Small
%
25
71
50
Research Strategies
The research sought to establish whether institutions have overarching strategies for research, whether they also have strategies for internationalisation and if these two strategies are combined. It then explored how far the strategies specifically addressed international research collaborations. It then went on to explore the aspects of international research collaboration that are covered in these strategies.
Almost all HEIs that responded reported that they have a research strategy (95%); two-thirds (68%) have an internationalisation strategy. Less than half (43%) have a combined research and internationalisation strategy and just over a quarter have another related strategy (27%, Table 7)
Table 7 - Research strategy overall
HEI strategies
Strategy that combines research and internationalisation
Research strategy
Internationalisation strategy
Another strategy, please specify?*
*See note after table 9
N
39
102
65
6
%
43
95
68
27
Total
91
107
95
18
Scottish HEIs are more likely to have a combined strategy and slightly more likely to have a research strategy than English HEIs. There are insufficient data from Wales and Northern Ireland to draw any conclusions (Appendix Table 2).
Almost all institutions have a research strategy and three-quarters of pre- and post-
92 institutions and two-thirds of SI/GCs have an internationalisation strategy. Almost two-thirds of pre-92 HEIs have a combined strategy (62%) compared to post-92s
(28%) and SI/GCs (21%, Table 8.
Table 8 - Research strategy by type
Strategy that combines research and internationalisation
Research strategy
Internationalisation strategy
Another strategy, please specify?*
* See the note after table 9
N
Pre-92
%
26 62
39
26
3
95
72
38
39
26
2
Post-92
N %
9 28
98
72
18
22
13
0
N
3
SI/GC
%
21
96
65
-
9

Half of large HEIs and just below half of medium sized HEIs (44%) have a combined strategy, while less than a third (30%) of small HEIs have a strategy combining internationalisation and research (Table 9).
Table 9 - Research strategy by size
Strategy that combines research and internationalisation
Research strategy
Internationalisation strategy?
Another strategy, please specify?*
N
Large
%
19
38
25
4
50
93
69
4
Medium
N %
12
33
22
0
44
100
73
-
N
Small
%
7
29
18
1
30
97
69
17
* Among respondents that have another strategy, two have overarching strategies that combined internationalisation and research (one large pre-92 embedded in the
Corporate Plan and Divisional Strategies, one large post-92 as part of the Academic
Strategy). Two have them as part of the research strategy (one medium sized SI/GC and one large post-92); one medium sized pre-92 as part of the strategy of the
International Office and two pre-92s (one small, one large) where internationalisation and research are part of School strategies.
Strategies for international research collaboration
Analysis of the nature of strategies found that a quarter (24%) of HEIs have a research and internationalisation strategy that specifically deal with international research collaborations (IRC) to a significant extent and a further 62% 'to some extent'. Just over a third reported that their internationalisation strategies deal with
IRC to a significant extent and a further 51% 'to some extent'. Almost a third of HEIs reported that their research strategies do not deal with IRC at all (Table 10). There is very little variation on these patterns by country, type or size of HEI (see Appendix
Tables 3, 4 and 5), however analysis of responses by HEI type revealed that very few SI/GCs or small HEIs responded to this set of questions.
Table 10 - Strategy for international research collaborations: overall
Yes, to a significant extent
N % N
Yes, to some extent
% N
No
Do es the research and internationalisation strategy specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Do es the internationalisation strategy specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Do es the research strategy specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Do es the other strategy specifically deal with international research collaborations
12
22
28
-
24
34
28
-
31
33
42
3
62
51
41
75
7
10
32
1
%
14
15
31
25
Total
N
50
65
102
4
10

The content of IRC strategies
HEIs are more likely to have strategies that specified partner type and particular countries or regions than they are to specify subject area. Only a quarter (26%) of
IRC strategies specified subject areas while over half (55%) specified partnership type and 42% particular countries or regions. HEIs are also unlikely to have specific income targets or targets of other kinds (Table 11).
Table 11 - Content of international research collaboration strategy: overall
Does your strategy specify particular countries or regions?
Does your strategy refer to a focus on specific types of partnership?
Does your strategy specify subject areas?
Does your strategy have income targets?
Does your strategy specify other targets?*
50
24
13
15
N
Yes
%
38 41
55
26
14
20
61
56
69
45
N
46
No
%
50
34
61
75
61
10
12
10
14
N
N\A
%
9 10
11
13
11
19
Total
N
93
121
92
92
74
Among individual countries, Scottish respondents are more likely to specify partnership type (73% as opposed to 55% for all and 53% for England), though the number of respondents is low (Appendix Table 6). However, there are larger variations by HEI type with pre-1992 HEIs far more likely than post-92 HEIs to specify particular countries or regions and partnership types (Table 12).
Table 12 - Content of international research collaboration strategy: by HEI type
Does your strategy specify particular countries or regions?
Does your strategy refer to a focus on specific types of partnership?
Does your strategy specify subject areas?
Does your strategy have income targets?
Does your strategy specify other targets?*
Note: SI/GC numbers too small for useful comparison
30
9
9
7
N
Pre-92
%
22 50
68
21
21
23
12
5
3
5
Post-92
N %
8 26
40
17
10
18
8
10
-
3
N
SI/GC
%
8 41
55
26
14
20
Analysis by size shows that it is the smaller HEIs that are more likely to specify particular countries or regions, partnership types and subject areas. Note also that larger institutions are more likely to specify income and other targets in their IRC strategies (Table 13).
Table 13 - Content of international research collaboration strategy: by size
N
Large
%
Medium
N %
Does your strategy specify particular countries or regions?
Does your strategy refer to a focus on specific types of partnership?
Does your strategy specify subject areas?
Does your strategy have income targets?
Does your strategy specify other targets?*
15
21
6
8
9
37
53
15
20
27
11
15
6
3
3
44
60
23
12
16
Note: Tables 13 and 14 do not contain NAs which account for between 8 and 25% of responses.
N
Small
12
14
12
1
3
%
48
58
48
4
15
11

*Other targets referred to include overall targets for defined research areas in one large post-92 institution, two that have targets related to student numbers (one large post-92 and one large pre-92) two that related to income targets (one large post-92, one large pre-92) and three large pre-92 institutions that referred to publication targets.
Strategic Approach
Summary
To summarise, most HEIs have PVCs responsible for research and over half have
PVCs responsible for research and internationalisation but only a quarter have PVCs responsible for both areas. Pre-92s are more likely to have PVCs responsible for internationalisation and SI/GCs least likely to have PVCs responsible for research:

Almost all HEIs have a research strategy, two thirds have an internationalisation strategy and less than half have a combined strategy. Pre-
92 HEIs are more likely to have a combined strategy. Combined strategies are also more likely in large institutions.

Whilst HEIs, therefore, have senior managers responsible for research and for internationalisation and strategies in these areas (separate or combined) they are much less likely to specifically address international research collaboration at the highest strategic level in the institution. Generally only a quarter to a third of HEIs specifically address IRC in their strategies and just over half do to some extent.

Where strategies referred to IRC they rarely specified targets and are more likely to refer to partners than to countries and least likely to refer to specific subject areas.
Central committees
We also explored committee structures that concern IRC in relation to strategic levels of co-ordination and monitoring of IRC in institutions. The vast majority of responding HEIs (96%) have a central committee responsible for research, and a significant minority (39%) have a central committee responsible for internationalisation. However, only 16% have a central committee responsible for both research and internationalisation (Table 14). There are no significant variations by country, size or HEI type (Appendix Tables 7, 8 and 9).
12

Table 14 - Central committees: overall
Central committee responsible for research and internationalisation
Central committee responsible for research
Central committee responsible for internationalisation
Another central committee dealing with research/ internationalisation, please specify?*
N
14
116
40
5
%
16
96
39
28
Total
89
121
102
18
*Among respondents that cited another committee dealing with research/ internationalisation, one small SI/GC referred to the directorate of school, one large post-92 cited a faculty-based committee for research and once small pre-92 have an
Overseas Collaborating Institutions Committee for this purpose.
A quarter (25%) of responding HEIs reported that the research committee deals with
IRC to a significant extent and another 49% to some extent. Very small numbers responded to the question 'Does the research and internationalisation committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?' making any variations too insignificant to report (N=14).There is little variation by country, size or HEI type for any of these questions.
Table 15 - Nature of the central committee dealing with international research: overall
Yes, to a significant extent
N % N
Yes, to some extent
% N
No
%
Total
N
Does the research and internationalisation committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the internationalisation committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the other committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
2
26
12
1
14
25
33
20
9
50
19
3
64
49
53
60
3
27
5
1
21
26
14
20
14
103
36
5
The highest level committee dealing with research in HEIs is also responsible for the research strategy in 95% of cases, for externally funded research in 82% of cases and for the research assessment exercise (RAE) in 90% of cases. However, responsibility for research students/studentships and unfunded research (i.e.
research conducted by academics as part of their research interests) is dispersed to other levels of the HEI in around 40% of institutions (Table 16). There is very little variation by country, though analysis by size shows that medium sized HEIs are slightly more likely to have all research responsibility at the highest level (100% for research strategy, 92% for externally funded research and 98% for the RAE).
Analysis by type shows that SI/GCs are more likely to have responsibilities dispersed, but also more likely to have the highest committee responsible for research students/studentships (67%) and unfunded research (71%, Appendix
Tables 10, 11 and 12).
13

Table 16 - Level of research decision making: overall
N
Yes
%
Is the highest level committee dealing with research in the institution responsible for the research strategy?
Is the highest level committee dealing with research in the institution responsible for externally funded research?
Is the highest level committee dealing with research in the institution responsible for the
RAE?
Is the highest level committee dealing with research in the institution responsible for research students/studentships?
Is the highest level committee dealing with research in the institution responsible for unfunded research?
22
103
114
74
62
95
82
90
60
52
N
No
%
4
20
10
46
52
3
16
8
37
43
N
N\A
%
2 2
Total
N
28
2
3
3
6
2 125
2 127
2 123
5 120
Committee Structures
Summary
Whist HEIs have committee structures that relate to research and internationalisation, the majority do not deal with IRC specifically. Committee structures do not always encompass all types of research, with research students and studentships and unfunded research often being devolved to other, more local, levels in institutions.
Corporate plans
Corporate plans that refer specifically to IRC 'to a significant extent' are in the minority at 14%, while another 57% of plans refer to IRC 'to some extent'. However,
29% of HEIs reported that their corporate plans do not refer to IRC. SI/GCs (with a lower response rate) are the most likely to report 'significant extent' (23%) but also the most likely to report no specific references to IRC (50%) in their corporate plans.
Among the size bands, smaller HEIs repeated the pattern of SI/GCs by reporting the highest incidence of significant extent (19%) and the highest incidence of nonreference to IRC (45%, Appendix Tables 13-16).
School/faculty/department business plans that refer specifically to IRC are reported in similar proportions to corporate plans, with the smallest and most specialist institutions recording the least references to IRC in plans.
Corporate plans
Summary
It seems to be the norm for either corporate or school/faculty/department plans to refer to IRC.
14

Monitoring of strategies
Over half of HEIs (55%) reported that they monitored the progress of institutional strategies and plans relating to IRC at institutional level. This practice is more common among pre-92 HEIs (66%) than among post-92s (41%). Around 60% of
SI/GCs reporting that they monitored strategies, however this category is the most likely to report that this is not applicable (13%, Appendix Tables 17-19). There is no significant variation by institution size or country.
Almost all HEIs (93%) that carry out such monitoring report regularly to PVC or high level committee level. When asked if the monitoring is 'broad brush', 'fairly specific' or
'detailed' there is little variation by country, with around 45% of respondents saying
'broad-brush' and 'fairly specific' and 10% 'detailed', however monitoring is more likely to be 'broad brush' in post-92 and medium sized institutions and more likely to be 'fairly specific' in smaller and specialist institutions (SI/GCs, Appendix Tables 17-
19).
Monitoring is most likely to refer to funded international research, which occurred in
89% of reported cases. International research studentships and unfunded international research are less likely to be mentioned (Table 17). Once again it is the smaller HEIs and those in the SI/GC category that exhibit the most centralised research monitoring; 69% of SI/GCs reported on unfunded international research compared to 46% of pre-92s and 63% of small HEIs reported on unfunded international research compared to 39% of pre-92s.
Table 17 - Content of monitoring reports: overall
N
Yes
%
63 89
Does the monitoring refer to funded international research?
Does the monitoring refer to international research studentships?
Does the monitoring refer to unfunded international research?
46
34
67
51
14
27
N
No
%
4 6
20
40
9
6
N
N\A
%
4 6
13
9
Total
N
71
69
67
Monitoring strategies
Summary
Where there are strategies and plans relating to IRC just over half of them are monitored. Monitoring and reporting is most likely in small and specialist institutions where gathering of data may be less complex. Monitoring is most likely to refer to the monitoring of funded research, rather than unfunded research or research studentships.
15

Overall summary- institutional strategic approaches
Whist institutions do have high level individuals responsible for research and internationalisation and do have strategies for both and do have institutional research committee structures, it is not the norm for those to refer to IRC, and where the do refer to IRC it tends not to be to a great degree of specificity.
Types and extent of international research collaboration
The research sought to identify the structures and processes used by HEIs to coordinate and monitor IRC. We will begin by identifying the types of IRC HEIs engage in.
Three-quarters or more of responding HEIs have international research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies (78%), by other international organisations (75%) or by UK public bodies (83%). In addition, 86% of HEIs report unfunded research collaborations with overseas academic colleagues. Over twothirds of HEIs (68%) report postgraduate research where students are located overseas, while 62% have unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues (Table 18). This indicates a considerable amount of IRC across
HEIs.
Table 18 - Types of international research collaboration: overall
N %
International research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies
International research collaborations funded by other international organisations
International research collaborations funded by UK public bodies
Postgraduate research where students are located overseas
Postgraduate research where students' supervision is shared with an overseas partner
Unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues
103
99
109
90
82
113
78
75
83
68
62
86
Total
131
132
132
132
132
132
There is significant variation by HEI type, with pre-92 institutions far more likely to be in receipt of funding from overseas public bodies (93%), other international organisations (95%) and UK public bodies (93%) than post-92s (76%, 65% and 83%) and, to an even greater extent, SI/GCs, less than half of which receive funding from any international public bodies. SI/GCs are also less likely to have postgraduate research where students are located abroad (30% compared to 72% for pre-92s) and where postgraduates' supervision is shared with overseas partners (26%). Post-
92 universities report the highest proportion of postgraduate research where students are located overseas (85%) and of unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues (91%, Table 19).
16

Table 19 - Types of international research collaboration: by type
International research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies
International research collaborations funded by other international organisations
International research collaborations funded by
UK public bodies
Postgraduate research where students are located overseas
Postgraduate research where students' supervision is shared with an overseas partner
Unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues
N
Pre-92
%
54 93
55
54
42
40
49
95
93
72
69
85
Post-92
N %
35 76
30
38
39
32
42
65
83
85
69
91
7
6
19
N
SI/GC
%
11 48
10
13
44
57
30
26
83
There is a similar profile by size of institution with over 90% of larger HEIs in receipt of funding from overseas public bodies and international research collaborations funded by UK public bodies. Only half of small HEIs (53%) are in receipt of funding from overseas public bodies and are they also less likely to have postgraduate research where students are located overseas (38% compared to 68% for all HEIs) and where postgraduates supervision is shared with overseas partners (28%, Table
20). There was insufficient data for analysis by country (Appendix Table 20).
Table 20 - The funding of international research: by size
N
Large
%
51 94
International research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies
International research collaborations funded by other international organisations
International research collaborations funded by
UK public bodies
Postgraduate research where students are located overseas
Postgraduate research where students' supervision is shared with an overseas partner
Unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues
47
49
45
40
49
87
91
83
74
91
Medium
N %
32 78
28
33
31
29
34
68
81
76
71
83
N
Small
%
17 53
20 63
72 23
12 38
28 9
27 84
Types and extent of international research collaboration
Summary
HEIs have a considerable amount of IRC across all the identified forms of IRC. For all HEI types, pre-92 and large HEIs are most likely to engage with IRC. There seems to be a discrepancy between the level of activity engaged in by HEIs and the level of strategic overview.
Research responsibility at department/school/faculty level
We explored firstly the responsibilities at department/school/faculty level before exploring whether these responsibilities included IRC.
17

A large majority (89%) of responding HEIs report that their department/faculty has a lead person at head of research level and 89% have a person leading on postgraduate research students. Two-thirds (66%) have a person leading on externally funded research, though less than half (47%) have a lead person on unfunded research. In over half of responding institutions these roles are combined
(Table 21). There are no significant variations by country (Appendix Table 21).
Among HEI types pre-92 institutions are the least likely to report that the lead person responsibilities are combined (37% against 54% for all HEIs and 78% for SI/GCs).
Responsibilities are also more likely to be combined within medium sized HEIs (63% against 54% for all HEIs, Appendix Tables 22 and 23).
Table 21 - Responsibility of lead person: overall
N
Yes
%
106 89
Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on un-funded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students?
Are these combined, and if so how?*
69
46
100
35
66
47
89
54
N
No
%
8 7
31
45
9
20
30
46
8
31
5
8
N
N\A
%
5 4
4
10
4
15
5
8
Total
N
119
105
99
113
65
* The titles of lead persons varied considerably: of 22 responses that named the role responsible six were VC or Deputy VC level and ten at senior management level.
Eight responses were from pre-92 HEIs, 12 from post-92 and 2 from SI/GCs; 16 institutions were large, four medium sized and two small. Among the large post-92 institutions responsibility lay with PVCs for Research in two cases, Senior
Management for Research in two cases and Head of Graduate School in two cases and Director of Finance in one case. Large pre-92s exhibited a similar pattern.
Among medium sized institutions responsibility was at VC and Director of Research level (2 instances of each).
The lead person and international research
The lead person deals with IRC to a 'significant extent' in 26% of responding HEIs and 'to some extent' in another 55% and took a significant role in international research collaborations, unfunded research and postgraduate students in approximately a third of HEIs. Combining 'significant' and 'to some extent' the lead person has responsibility for all these issues in approximately 80% of HEIs (Table
22). When the figures are broken down by HEI type the only significant variation occurs in the SI/GC category where the lead person is more likely to have responsibility to 'a significant extent' (for example 46% for international research collaborations) (Appendix Tables 24, 25 and 26).
18

Table 22 - IRC responsibilities of the lead person: overall
Do roles involve IRC?
Head of research institute/division/centre
Lead person on externally funded research
Lead person on un-funded research
Lead person on postgraduate research students
Combined role person
Yes, to a significant
N extent
%
26
22
14
26
34
30
32 36
10 36
55
36
26
Yes, to some
N extent
%
55
55
57
36 40
16 57
N
20
7
6
21
2
No
%
20
11
13
24
7
Total
N
101
65
46
89
28
Lead person
Summary
A quarter of lead persons for all types of research are likely to have significant responsibility for IRC and over half the responsibility to some extent. This is the same across all the different roles.
Department / school / faculty level committees
More than three-quarters of HEIs (80%) reported that there they have research committees in each department/school/faculty, while more than half (57%) have separate committees at this level to deal with postgraduate degrees (Table 23).
Research committees in each department/school/faculty are more prevalent in
Scotland than amongst all HEIs: 93% of institutions have research committees at the local level and 64% have separate committees to deal with postgraduate degrees
(Appendix Table 27).
Table 23 - Department / school / faculty level committees: overall
Research committee in each department/school/faculty
Separate committee in each department/school/faculty
N
Yes
%
101 80
65 57
N
No
%
21 17
47 41
N
N\A
%
5 4
3 3
Total
N
127
115
Post-92 (91%) and pre-92 HEIs (82%) are both far more likely than SI/GCs (50%) to have research committees at department/school/faculty level and to have separate committees to deal with postgraduate degrees in each school; only 11% of SI/GCs have this facility (Table 24).
Table 24 - Department / school / faculty level committees: by type
Research committee in each department/school/faculty
Separate committee in each department/school/faculty
N
Pre-92
%
46 82
34 67
Post-92
N %
40 91
23 59
N
SI/GC
%
11 80
5 57
19

Large (90%) and medium-sized HEIs (90%) are far more likely to have research committees at school level than small HEIs, among whom only 48% have this facility.
Only 25% of small HEIs have a separate committee to deal with postgraduate degrees in each school, compared to half (50%) in medium and 79% in large institutions (Table 25).
Table 25 - Department/school/faculty level committees: by size
Research committee in each department/school/faculty
Separate committee in each department/school/faculty
N
Large
%
47 90
37 79
Medium
N %
35 90
18 50
N
Small
%
15 48
7 25
The responsibilities of department/school/faculty level committees
Responsibility for IRC is equally distributed between research committees and separate IRC committees in responding HEIs. Specific research committees and deal with IRC to 'a significant extent' in 16% of cases, with another 68% 'to some extent'. For separate IRC committees 20% deal with IRC to 'a significant extent' and
61% to some extent' (Table 26).
Table 26 - IRC responsibility at department/school/faculty level: overall
Do roles involve IRC?
Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Yes, to a significant extent
N %
15 16
12 20
N
Yes, to some extent
%
64 68
37 61
N
15
12
No
%
16
20
Total
N
94
61
Numbers responding to the survey were too small for any variation by country to be reported (Appendix Table 28). However, analysis by type of HEI revealed that pre-92
HEIs are far more likely to report that both committees have a significant input on
IRC (23% for research and 25% separate) than post-92 HEIs (8% and 14%) or
SI/GCs (11% for research, 0 for the separate committee). Among post-92s over a quarter reported neither committee dealing with IRC while a third of SI/GCs reported that their research committees do not deal with IRC (Appendix Table 29).
Medium sized HEIs are more likely to report involvement to a significant extent than large HEIs or SI/GCs. Among medium HEIs 32% reported that a separate committee deal with IRC as opposed to just 17% of their research committees (Appendix Table
30).
20

Committees
Summary
Our findings suggest that the larger the institution the more likely it is to have committees at school/department/faculty level dealing with research and to have separate committees dealing with postgraduate research, and that this is general across HEI types. Most such committees do tend to deal with IRC to some extent.
A central office for externally funded projects
The research sought to establish if HEIs have central units that co-ordinate and monitor IRC. Overall, 85% of responding HEIs have a central office to deal with externally funded research projects. That figure rose to 93% of the 15 Scottish respondents and 100% of the eight Welsh respondents. SI/GCs reported the lowest proportion of HEIs by type (68%) that have a central office and smaller HEIs the lowest category by size of institution (74%) with over 90% of both large and medium sized institutions (91% and 93% respectively, Appendix Tables 31-34).
Responsibility for the central office
Responsibility for the central office most commonly belonged to 'a senior manager for research' (in 47% of cases) followed by 'a senior manager for business or enterprise' in 20% and 'a senior manager in Registry or equivalent' in 12% of cases.
A fifth (20%) of respondents cited 'other please specify' (Table 27).
Table 27 - Responsibility for the central office: overall
Under whose responsibility does it sit?
A senior manager for research
A senior manager in 'Registry' or equivalent
A senior manager for business or enterprise
A senior manager in corporate planning
Other, please specify*
A senior manager for research
Total
N
52
13
22
2
22
111
%
47
12
20
2
20
100
Numbers are too small for analysis by country (Appendix Table 35), however there are variations by HEI type and size. Among pre-92 HEIs, senior managers for research are responsible for the central office in 50% of cases with 14% for senor managers in Registry and 18% in business and enterprise. Among post-92 HEIs responsibility is more evenly divided between senior managers for research (36%), senior managers for business or enterprise (23%) and Registry (10%) and 31% stating responsibility is under 'other'. Among the 14 SI/GCs that answered to this question 64% located the central office under the leadership of the senior manager for research (Table 28).
21

Table 28 - Responsibility for the central office: by type
Pre
Pre / Post / SI
Post SI/GC
A senior manager for research
A senior manager in
'Registry' or equivalent
A senior manager for business or enterprise
A senior manager in corporate planning
Other, please specify*
Total
N
28
8
10
2
8
56
%
50
14
18
4
14
100
N
14
4
9
-
12
39
%
36
10
23
-
31
100
N
9
-
3
-
2
14
%
64
-
21
-
14
100
Analysis by size reveals that smaller institutions (albeit with a response of only 22) reported the highest incidence of locating the central office under the responsibility of a senior manager for research (64%) compared to 54% for medium and 34% for large HEIs. In each category 'a senior manger for business or enterprise' is second most common response, although almost a third of large HEIs reported that responsibility lay in an 'other' category (Table 29).
Table 29 - Responsibility for the central office: by size
Large
Size of institution
Medium Small
A senior manager for research
A senior manager in
'Registry' or equivalent
A senior manager for business or enterprise
A senior manager in corporate planning
Other, please specify*
Total
10
1
16
50
N
17
6
20
2
32
100
%
34
12
9
-
4
37
N
20
4
24
-
11
100
%
54
11
3
1
2
22
N
14
2
14
5
9
100
%
64
9
22

Central postgraduate office
Overall, 81% of responding HEIs have a central postgraduate office; 89% of post-
92s, 83% of pre-92s and only 68% of SI/GCs have a central postgraduate office.
There is no significant variation by size and insufficient data for analysis by country
(Appendix Tables 36-39).
Responsibility for the postgraduate office
Registry or equivalent is the most common location for responsibility for the postgraduate office, cited in 46% of responses, followed by 'a senior manager for research' (32%, Table 30). There were insufficient data for analysis by country
(Appendix Table 40).
Table 30 - Responsibility for the postgraduate office: overall
A senior manager for research
A senior manager in 'Registry' or equivalent
A senior manager for business or enterprise
Other, please specify*
Total
N
33
47
3
20
103
%
32
46
3
19
100
Among pre-92 institutions responsibility is most commonly located within Registry or equivalent (61%) while among post-92s senior managers for research are more likely to hold responsibility than Registry (44% to 36%, Table 31).
Table 31 - Responsibility for the postgraduate office: by type
Pre
Pre / Post / SI
Post SI/GC
A senior manager for research
A senior manager in
'Registry' or equivalent
A senior manager for business or enterprise
Other, please specify*
Total
2
10
46
N
6
28
%
13
61
4
22
100
N
17
14
1
7
39
%
44
36
3
18
100
N
9
4
-
2
15
%
60
27
-
13
100
23

Analysed by size, large and medium institutions most commonly located responsibility in Registry, followed by 'a senior manager for research' (as do the smaller number of small HEI respondents). In both large and medium HEIs a significant minority (24% and 18% respectively) located responsibility in the 'other, please specify' category (Table 32).
Table 32 - Responsibility for the postgraduate office: by size
Large
Size of institution
Medium Small
A senior manager for research
A senior manager in
'Registry' or equivalent
A senior manager for business or enterprise
Other, please specify*
Total
N
11
22
1
%
24
49
2
N
12
14
2
%
35
41
6
N
9
10
%
43
48
11
45
24
100
6
34
18
100
2
21
10
100
*Combinations of people dealing with international research collaborations included three institutions where the head of research/division/centre is also the lead person on externally funded research (one large pre-92, one large post-92 and one medium sized pre-92); six institutions where the head of research/division/centre is also the lead person on externally funded research and on unfunded research (three medium sized pre-92s, one large post-92, one medium pre-92 and one small SI/GC); six institutions where the head of research / division / centre is also the lead person on externally funded research, unfunded research and postgraduates (two large post-92s, two medium-sized SI/GCs, one small SI/GC and once medium-sized post-92s). In addition the lead person on externally funded research and on unfunded research are combined in two small SI/GCs and the head of research / division
/ centre also lead on externally funded research and postgraduates in two large post-92s and one medium sized pre-92.
Four institutions reported that this pattern varied between departments, schools or faculties across the institution (three large pre-92s and once large post-92); two post-
92s (one large, one small) reported that Associate Deans are responsible at faculty level; two pre-92s (one large, one medium) reported that responsibility at faculty level rested with Research Committees; and three institutions have a centrally nominated person responsible (two large post-92s, one large pre-92 and one small SI/GC).
Responsibility for the postgraduate office
Summary
Responsibility for postgraduate offices most often falls within the Registry (or equivalent) or research office, though in larger institutions (pre- and post-92) there is more likelihood that responsibility will be spread among other areas, often at research centre or faculty level. Smaller and specialist institutions are more likely to centralise responsibility.
24

Three-quarters of responding HEIs (77%) hold information about overseas funded income centrally, while two-thirds (68%) record the information and over half (57%) collate and report it. Just over a third (35%) hold this information in the relevant department, school or faculty (Table 33).
Table 33 - Recording of income from overseas funded projects: overall
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
N
90
75
101
46
1
10
35
1
8
%
68
57
77
Total
132
132
132
132
132
132
There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country, however there are significant variations by HEI type and size (Appendix Table 41). Pre-92s are more likely to record (81%), hold centrally (83%) and collate and report on such information than post-92s and SI/GCs. Post-92s are the most likely to hold the information in the department, school or faculty. Less than half of SI/GCs either record (44%) or collated/reported on income from overseas funded projects (Table
34). A similar pattern emerges from analysis by size of institution, with large HEIs more likely to record (85%), hold centrally (83%) and collate and report (66%) such information than medium and small HEIs. Small institutions are more likely than medium ones to collate and report, though medium institutions are more likely to hold such information centrally and within the department, school or faculty (Table 34).
Table 34 - Recording of income from overseas funded projects: by type and size
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/
Faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
Pre-92
N %
47 81
38
48
66
83
19
-
2
33
-
3
Type
Post-92
N
32
%
70
25
36
54
78
14
1
1
61
2
2
N
SI/GC
%
10 44
11
14
48
61
7
-
6
30
-
26
N
Large
%
46 85
38
45
70
83
24
1
-
44
2
-
Size
Medium
N
27
%
66
19
32
46
78
14
-
2
34
-
5
N
Small
%
16 50
17
21
53
66
3
-
7
19
-
22
25

The recording of income from UK funded research projects that have international collaborations
Almost three-quarters of responding HEIs (72%) hold information on income from UK funded research projects involving international collaborations centrally and two thirds (67%) record it, however only half collate and report on it. A third (34%) hold this information within the department, school or faculty (Table 35).
Table 35 - Recording of income from UK funded research projects that have international collaborations: overall
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
45
1
10
N
88
66
95
34
1
8
%
67
50
72
Total
132
132
132
132
132
132
Pre-92 universities are the most likely to record income from UK funded research projects that have international collaborations (74%) while SI/GCs are the least likely at only 52%. Analysis by size revealed a similar pattern with the large HEIs most likely to record the information (76%) and small HEIs the least likely at 56% and also the least likely to record such information at the school, department or faculty level
(Table 36). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country except for
England and Scotland, where there is no significant variation (Appendix Table 42).
Table 36 - Recording of income from UK funded research projects that have international collaborations: by type and size
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/
Faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
Pre-92
N %
43 74
30
43
52
74
18
1
2
31
2
3
Type
Post-92
N
32
%
70
23
34
50
74
18
-
2
39
-
3
N
SI/GC
%
12 52
12
15
52
65
7
-
5
30
-
22
N
Large
%
41 76
28
40
52
73
23
1
1
43
2
2
Size
Medium
N
28
%
68
19
30
46
72
14
-
2
34
-
5
N
Small
%
18 56
18
22
56
69
6
-
6
19
-
19
26

Central Office for Externally Funded Research
Responding institutions were asked to name the Central Office that deals with their externally funded research projects. Responses came in seven categories: research office/support; linked with enterprise or business development; referring to funding; linked to knowledge transfer; referring to development/innovation; referring to graduate study; and referring to strategy. Titles referring to enterprise or business development are most common, 25 instances; and are most commonly found in large post-92 institutions (8) and medium sized and large pre-92s (7 and 5). Titles referring to research office or research support are the second most commonly found and the most evenly spread among HEI categories. Six large post-92s referred to funding in the title and seven medium sized pre-92s have development or innovation in their titles (Appendix Table 43).
Responsibility of the Central Office is at PVC or Deputy VC level in seven responding institutions (3 large post-92s, 2 medium sized pre-92s, 1 large pre-92 and one small
SI/GC). Senior managers are responsible in ten institutions (4 large post-92s, 3 large pre-92s, 1 medium sized post-92, 1 small post-92 and 1 medium sized SI/GC). One large post-92 has responsibility under the University Research Committee.
Recording the types of international partners in research collaborations
(funded research)
Only just over half (53%) of all responding HEIs hold information on types of international partners in research collaborations involving funded research, and less than half (47%) record it. Less than a third of such collaborations are collated and reported on and for 11% of institutions this information is not recorded at all.
However, 39% held the information at school, department or faculty level (Table 37).
Table 37 - Recording the types of international partners: overall
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
51
15
10
N
62
38
70
39
11
8
%
47
29
53
Total
132
132
132
132
132
132
There is little variation between the overall findings and those by HEI type or size.
However, SI/GCs and smaller HEIs are the least likely to record information on types of international partners in research collaborations involving funded research. The proportion of institutions not recording such information in any way is highest among pre-92 universities (17%) and among medium sized HEIs (20%, Table 38). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country except for England and Scotland, where there is no significant variation (Appendix Table 44).
27

Table 38 - Recording the types of international partners: by type and size
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/
Faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
Pre-92
N %
30 52
16
32
28
55
19
10
2
33
17
3
Type
Post-92
N
23
%
50
14
23
30
50
21
4
3
46
9
7
N
SI/GC
%
8 35
8
13
35
57
8
1
4
35
4
17
N
Large
%
31 57
16
31
30
57
25
4
3
46
7
6
Size
Medium
N
19
%
46
12
21
39
51
13
8
2
32
20
5
10
3
4
N
Small
%
11 34
10
16
31
50
31
9
13
The recording of where international funded research collaborations are taking place
Less than half (47%) of responding HEIs hold information on where international research collaborations are taking place centrally, only 25% collate and report on such information and 14% do not record the information at all. However, 42% of HEIs record this information at school, department or faculty level (Table 39). There were insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 45).
Table 39 - Recording where funded IRC takes place: overall
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
55
18
10
N
53
33
62
42
14
8
%
40
25
47
Total
132
132
132
132
132
132
Pre-92 universities and medium sized institutions are the most likely to hold information on where international research collaborations are taking place centrally
(both 49%) with SI/GCs and small HEIs the least likely at 26% and 25% respectively.
Pre-92 universities and medium sized institutions are also the most likely to record that they do not record such information at all (Table 40). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country.
Table 40 - Recording where funded IRC takes place: by type and size
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/
Faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
N
Pre-92
%
28 48
14 24
27
21
11
3
47
36
19
5
Type
Post-92
N
19
%
41
11 24
22
21
6
3
48
46
13
7
1
3
N
SI/GC
%
6 26
8 35
11
10
48
44
4
13
N
Large
%
25 46
15 28
29
24
6
4
54
44
11
7
Size
Medium
N
20
%
49
9 22
18
17
7
2
44
42
17
4
13
11
5
3
N
Small
%
8 25
9 28
41
34
16
9
28

The recording of the subject area of international funded research collaborations
Less than half (47%) of responding HEIs hold information about the subject area of international research collaborations centrally, and where it is recorded (42%) it is held at school, department or faculty level. Less than a quarter (24%) of institutions collate and report on this information and 11% do not record it in any way (Table 41).
Table 41 - Recording of the subject of international funded research collaborations: overall
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
N
56
31
62
57
14
11
%
42
24
47
43
11
8
Total
132
132
132
132
132
132
SI/GCs (39%) and small HEIs (38%) are the most likely to collate and report on the subject areas of international research collaborations. Over half of pre-92 universities recorded this information and held it centrally (52% for both), a profile shared by medium sized HEIs. Post-92 universities (50%) and large HEIs (48%) are those most likely to hold such information at school, department or faculty level. Small institutions are the most likely not to record this information at all (Table 42). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 46).
Table 42 - Recording of the subject of international research collaborations by type and size
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/
Faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
N
Pre-92
%
30 52
14 24
30 52
22
6
3
38
10
5
Type
Post-92
N
18
%
39
8 17
20 44
23
6
3
50
13
7
N
SI/GC
%
8 35
9 39
10 44
9
2
4
39
9
17
N
Large
%
24 44
10 19
25 46
26
5
4
48
9
17
Size
Medium
N
20
%
49
9 22
55 54
17
4
2
42
10
5
N
Small
%
12 38
12 38
13 41
11
5
4
34
16
13
Recording of income records for IRC
Summary
There is a greater likelihood that income records of UK and overseas funded research collaborations will be kept than the actual location, partner details or subject areas of such linkages. On issues less directly related to income, such as the recording of details of partners, subject areas and countries where IRC occurs, information is more likely to be held in departments, faculties and schools. Small institutions and SI/GCs appear more likely to collate and report on information by subject area (perhaps because subject area information is more important to smaller
29

institutions with a narrower IRC profile) but they are also more likely not to record such information at all.
Recording the number of postgraduate research students located overseas
Almost two-thirds of responding HEIs (61%) hold centrally the number of postgraduate research students located overseas, while another third (35%) hold them at school, department or faculty level. Half (53%) of HEIs record such information but less than one-third (30%) collate and report it (Table 43).
Table 43 - Recording the number of postgraduate research students located overseas: overall
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
46
5
20
N
70
40
81
35
4
15
%
53
30
61
Total
132
132
132
132
132
132
Post-92 universities (63%) and large HEIs (70%) are most likely to record the number of postgraduate research students located overseas and the most likely to collate and report on such information (41% and 43% respectively). Post-92s are also the most likely to hold such information centrally (76%, Table 44).
There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 47).
Table 44 - Recording the number of postgraduate research students located overseas: by type and size
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/
Faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
N
Pre-92
%
34 59
16
33
28
57
24
4
4
41
7
7
Type
Post-92
N
29
%
63
19
35
41
76
17
1
2
37
2
4
N
SI/GC
%
6 26
4
10
17
44
4
-
12
17
-
52
N
Large
%
38 70
23
35
43
65
26
-
2
48
-
4
Size
Medium
N
22
%
54
8
28
20
68
13
2
4
32
5
10
N
Small
%
9 28
8
15
25
47
6
3
12
19
9
38
Recording the type of international partners in research supervision
Less than half (45%) of responding HEIs hold such information centrally and approximately a third record (37%) or hold it at school, department or faculty level
(35%). Less than one fifth (17%) collate and report on the type of international partners in research supervision (Table 45).
30

Table 45 - Recording the type of international partners in research supervision: overall
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
46
17
25
N
49
23
59
35
13
19
%
37
17
45
Total
132
132
132
132
132
132
Post-92 (48%) and large HEIs (54%) are the most likely to record the type of international partners in research supervision, and also the most likely to collate/report on this information, though in only about a quarter of cases. Post-92
(59%) and medium sized HEIs (59%) are most likely to hold this information centrally and at school, department or faculty level. This is not the case in around half of
SI/GCs (57%) or small institutions (47%, Table 46). There is insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 48).
Table 46 - Recording the type of international partners in research supervision: by type and size
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/
Faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
N
Pre-92
%
23 40
9 16
24
20
10
7
41
35
17
12
Type
Post-92
N
22
%
48
12 26
27
18
7
4
59
39
15
9
N
SI/GC
%
3 13
2 9
5
6
-
13
22
26
-
57
N
Large
%
29 54
13 24
24
29
5
4
44
54
9
7
Size
Medium
N
14
%
34
5 12
24
9
9
5
59
22
22
12
N
Small
%
5 16
5 16
8
3
3
15
25
9
9
47
Recording the countries where students are located
Less than half of responding HEIs (49%) recorded where overseas research students were located and just over half (55%) held this information centrally, with another third holding this information at school, department or faculty level (36%).
Around a quarter (27%) collated/reported on this information (Table 47).
Table 47 - Recording the countries where students are located: overall
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
47
7
20
N
64
36
73
%
49
27
55
36
5
15
Total
132
132
132
132
132
132
31

Post-92 (59%) and large institutions (65%) are the most likely to record where overseas research supervised students are located. Over half of pre-92s (53%) and
49% of medium sized HEIs also record this information, but only a fifth (22%) of
SI/GCs and 25% of small HEIs do so. Around two-thirds of post-92s and medium sized HEIs hold such information centrally; post-92s (35%) and large HEIs (35%) are the most likely to collate and report on such figures (Table 48). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 49).
Table 48 - Recording the countries where students are located: by type and size
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/
Faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
Pre-92
N %
31 53
16 28
30
24
5
4
52
41
9
7
Type
Post-92
N
27
%
59
16 35
31
17
2
3
67
37
4
7
N
SI/GC
%
5 22
3 13
9
5
-
11
39
22
-
48
N
Large
%
35 65
19 35
31
27
1
2
57
50
2
4
Size
Medium
N
20
%
48
9 22
26
12
2
5
63
29
5
12
N
Small
%
8 25
7 22
13
7
4
11
41
22
13
34
Recording the location of overseas base students
Summary
Surprisingly little data is held on where overseas research students are located geographically, or with what kind of partner institutions. Medium sized and Post-92 institutions are most likely to record the data and hold it centrally. For between a third and a half of small and specialised respondents these issues do not apply.
Recording the topics/subjects of the research students
Less than half of responding institutions record such information (46%) and hold it at school, department or faculty level (40%); less than a quarter collate this information to report on it (24%) but just over half (52%) hold it centrally (Table 49).
Table 49 - Recording the topics / subjects of the research students: overall
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
53
8
19
N
61
31
69
40
6
14
%
46
24
52
Total
132
132
132
132
132
132
Post-92 (57%) and large institutions (57%) are most likely to record the topics/subjects of their research students; less than a third of SI/GCs and small institutions do so (30% and 31%). Three-quarters of post-92s (74%) and 61% of
32

medium sized HEIs held this information centrally, as do 52% of large HEIs. Large
HEIs are most likely to hold this at school, department or faculty level, though only
25% of small institutions. In 12% of post-92s and almost 10% of medium and small
HEIs this is not recorded at all and for around a third of both SI/GCs and small HEIs it does not apply (Table 50). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 50).
Table 50 - Recording the topics / subjects of the research students: by type and size
N
Pre-92
%
27 47
Type
Post-92
N
26
%
57
N
SI/GC
%
7 30
N
Large
%
31 57
Size
Medium
N
19
%
46
N
Small
%
10 31 Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/
Faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
11
24
25
7
7
19
41
43
12
12
14
34
20
1
2
30
74
44
2
4
5
9
7
-
8
22
39
30
-
35
14
28
30
1
4
26
52
56
2
7
7
25
14
4
4
17
61
34
10
10
9
14
8
3
9
28
35
25
9
28
Recording the number of unfunded research projects involving international collaborations by country
Less than a fifth of responding institutions record, held centrally or collated and reported on this information, and almost a third (30%) do not record the information at all. Less than half (41%) held this information at school, department or faculty level
(Table 51).
Table 51 - Recording the number of unfunded research projects involving international collaborations by country: overall
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
54
40
14
N
25
18
24
41
30
11
%
19
14
18
Total
132
132
132
132
132
132
SI/GCs are the only HEI category that record this to a significant extent, in 39% of cases; they are also the most likely to collate/report (30%) and hold centrally (48%) the number of unfunded research projects involving international collaborations by country. In each of the categories between 37% and 45% of institutions held this at school, department or faculty level. However, for around a third of pre-92, post-92, large and medium HEIs it is not recorded at all (Table 52).
There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 51).
33

Table 52 - Recording the number of unfunded research projects involving international collaborations by country: by type and size
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/
Faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
2
4
Pre-92
N %
6 10
3
7
25
21
7
43
36
12
9
8
Type
Post-92
N
9
%
20
20
17
18
16
2
39
35
4
N
SI/GC
%
9 39
9
11
39
48
10
2
3
44
9
13
9
6
N
Large
%
9 17
17
11
24
18
3
44
33
6
8
7
Size
Medium
N
8
%
20
20
17
17
15
4
42
37
10
N
Small
%
7 22
7
10
22
31
12
6
5
38
19
16
Recording the types of international partners/colleagues for unfunded international research
There is a very similar pattern to the previous section (recording the number of unfunded research projects involving international collaborations by country). Less than a fifth of responding institutions recorded, held centrally or collated and reported on this information, and almost a third (29%) did not record the information at all.
Less than half (42%) held this information at school, department or faculty level
(Table 53). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country and very similar patters of behaviour by type and size of institution (Appendix Tables 52, 53 and 54).
Table 53 - Recording the types of international partners/colleagues for unfunded international research: overall
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
55
38
16
N
23
17
28
42
29
12
%
17
13
21
Total
132
132
132
132
132
132
Recording the countries where collaboration on unfunded research is taking place
A fifth of institutions record (20%) and hold information on the countries where collaboration on unfunded research is taking place centrally (22%) and just below half hold it at school, department or faculty level (45%). A quarter of institutions do not hold this information at all (Table 54).
34

Table 54 - Recording the countries where collaboration on unfunded research is taking place: overall
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
59
32
16
N
26
19
29
45
24
12
%
20
14
22
Total
132
132
132
132
132
132
SI/GCs are by far the most likely to record the countries where collaboration is taking place (44%) and hold this centrally (44%). They are also the most likely to collate/report on this information (35%) along with small HEIs (28%). Almost a third of pre-92, post-92 and medium sized institutions and a quarter of large institutions do not hold this information at all (Table 55). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 55).
Table 55 - Recording the countries where collaboration on unfunded research is taking place: by type and size
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/
Faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
Pre-92
N %
Post-92
N
Type
% N
SI/GC
% N
Large
%
Size
Medium
N
7 12.1
8 17.4
10 43.5
9 16.7
9
%
22.0
N
7
Small
%
21.9
3 5.2
8 17.4
8 34.8
6 11.1
4 9.8
9 28.1
8 13.8
10 21.7
10 43.5
9 16.7
10 24.4
9 28.1
27 46.6
21 45.7
10 43.5
28 51.9
18 43.9
12 37.5
17 29.3
13 28.3
1
7 12.1
3 6.5
4
4.3
17.4
14
4
25.9
7.4
12
4
29.3
9.8
5
6
15.6
18.8
Recording the topics/subjects of unfunded international research
Approximately a sixth of institutions record (17%) and hold centrally (15%) information on the topics or subjects of unfunded international research and just less than half hold it at school, department or faculty level (44%). More than a quarter of institutions (28%) do not hold this information at all (Table 56).
Table 56 - Recording the topics/subjects of unfunded international research: overall
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
58
37
19
N
22
16
20
44
28
14
%
17
12
15
Total
132
132
132
132
132
132
35

SI/GCs are by far the most likely to record (44%) and hold centrally (44%) the topics/subjects of unfunded international research, and the most likely to collate and report on it (26%). Pre-92, post-92, large and medium sized institutions are the most likely not to record this information at all (Table 57). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 56).
Table 57 - Recording the topics/subjects of unfunded international research: by type and size
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/
Faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
1
3
Pre-92
N %
3 5
2
5
26
21
8
45
36
14
9
6
Type
Post-92
N
8
%
17
20
13
21
15
3
46
33
7
N
SI/GC
%
10 44
6
10
26
44
10
1
5
44
4
22
6
5
N
Large
%
8 15
11
9
27
16
5
50
30
9
3
5
Size
Medium
N
6
%
15
7
12
18
16
4
44
39
10
7
9
N
Small
%
7 22
22
28
12
5
7
38
16
22
Recording the number of university staff involved in unfunded international research
A significant minority of responding HEIs (39%) do not record this information at all and where they do for a third (34%) it is in the school, department or faculty rather than centrally. Overall only 14% record it and 11% collate and report the information
(Table 58).
Table 58 - Recording the number of university staff involved in unfunded international research: overall
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
45
52
18
N
19
15
18
34
39
14
%
14
11
14
Total
132
132
132
132
132
132
SI/GCs are by far the most likely to record this information and hold it centrally
(39%). By contrast only 5% of pre-92 and record and hold it centrally. Over half of large HEIs and almost half of pre-92s (48%) and post-92s (44) do not record it at all.
The issue do not apply for one fifth of SI/GCs and small institutions (Table 59). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 57).
36

Table 59 - Recording the number of university staff involved in unfunded international research: type and size
Record
Collated/reported on
Held centrally
Held in dept/school/
Faculty
Not record at all
Does not apply
2
3
Pre-92
N %
3 5
3
5
20
28
7
35
48
12
8
5
Type
Post-92
N
6
%
13
17
11
15
20
4
33
44
9
9
3
5
5
9
N
SI/GC
%
9 39
22
39
39
13
22
5
3
N
Large
%
6 11
9
6
16
28
5
30
52
9
4
6
Size
Medium
N
6
%
15
10
15
17
16
4
42
39
10
11
7
7
6
8
N
Small
%
6 19
19
25
34
22
22
Recording data on unfunded collaboration
Summary
The majority of institutions are content to hold information on unfunded research collaborations at department, school or faculty level if they hold it at all. Around half of large and pre-92 institutions do not hold such information. However SI/GCs are the most likely to collate, report and hold this information centrally as well as at more local levels.
Overall summary of recording of IRC
The recording of IRC information is more likely to occur at central level if it is related to income; otherwise, IRC information is likely to be held at more local levels. This is reflected in the recording of information on unfunded research collaborations, which is recorded more carefully by specialised institutions than other kinds. This perhaps reflects the fact that larger institutions are more financially driven institutions, while
SI/GCs value other types of international research collaborations such as those based on subject-based academic research or knowledge sharing.
Almost all (95%) responding institutions use information recorded on IRC in their
RAE submissions, over 80% use it in regular reports to committees or managers and in response to ad hoc enquiries and 79% use it in regular reports to external bodies
(Table 60).
37

Table 60- How this information is used: overall
Is the information used in the RAE submission?
Is the information used in regular reports to committees or managers?
Is the information used in regular reports to external bodies?
Is the information used in response to ad hoc enquiries?
Is the information used for other reasons, please specify?
N
117
99
94
100
8
%
95
83
79
86
50
Total
123
120
119
117
16
Post-92 HEIs are the most likely group to use this information in submissions to the
RAE (100%) as opposed to 86% of SI/GCs. However, SI/GCs are more likely to use it in internal reports to committees and managers. Large HEIs are marginally more likely to use this information in their RAE submissions and in response to ad hoc enquiries while small HEIs are marginally more likely to use it in internal reports to committees or managers (Table 61). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 58).
Table 61 - How this information is used: by type and size
Pre-92
N %
Type
Post-92
N % N
SI/GC
% N
Large
%
Is the information used in the RAE submission?
Is the information used in regular reports to committees or managers?
Is the information used in regular reports to external bodies?
Is the information used in response to ad hoc enquiries?
Is the information used for other reasons, please specify?
50
44
44
46
5
94
82
83
87
50
45
33
33
35
3
100
79
77
85
50
18
18
14
16
-
86
90
74
84
-
51
40
41
44
7
100
82
84
92
78
Size
Medium
N %
35 92
31
29
31
-
80
74
82
-
N
Small
%
27 90
24
21
22
1
86
78
82
25
How the information is pulled together and provided to strategic groups or roles
It is the responsibility of one person or group to pull together information recorded on
IRC for strategic groups or roles in 57% of all responding HEIs. This is most often the case in SI/GCs (82%), small HEIs (68%) and in post-92 institutions (64%) and least common in pre-92 (43) and medium sized institutions (48%, Table 62).
38

Table 62 - One group or person who collates information recorded on IRC for strategic groups or roles?
All responding HEIs
N
73
%
57
Total
128
England
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
Pre
Post
SI/GC
Large
Medium
Small
31
19
21
25
28
18
7
1
57
6
59
48
68
43
64
82
59
40
88
33
53
40
31
58
44
22
8
3
97
15
39

Whist institutions do have high level individuals responsible for research and internationalisation and do have strategies for both and do have institutional research committee structures, it is not the norm for those to refer to IRC, and where they do refer to IRC it tends not to be to a great degree of specificity. Almost all HEIs have a research strategy, two thirds have an internationalisation strategy and less than half have a combined strategy. Pre-92 HEIs are more likely to have a combined strategy.
Combined strategies are also more likely in large institutions.
Internationalisation seems to be more important to pre-92 institutions than other types of HEI and they are more likely to have a strategy that combines internationalisation and research. For post-92 institutions these are more likely to be dealt with separately. HEIs are more likely to have strategies that specify partner type and particular countries and regions than they are to specify subject area.
Smaller and specialist institutions (SI/GCs) are more likely to specify details of partners, regions and subject areas favoured while larger institutions are more likely to produce strategies containing income targets.
Overall HEIs have a considerable amount of IRC across all the identified forms of
IRC. For all HEI types, pre-92 and large HEIs are most likely to engage with IRC.
However, there is quite a large discrepancy between the nature of international research collaborations by type and size, for example few small HEIs or SI/GCs receive international or national public research funding and also have less international post-graduate research students. Our findings suggest that the larger the institution the more likely it is to have committees at school/department/faculty level dealing with research and to have separate committees dealing with postgraduate research, and that this is general across HEI types. Most such committees do tend to deal with IRC to some extent.
There seems to be a discrepancy between the level of activity engaged in by HEIs and the level of strategic overview. A quarter of lead persons for all types of research are likely to have significant responsibility for IRC and over half the responsibility to some extent. This is the same across all the different roles. Responsibility for postgraduate offices most often falls within the Registry (or equivalent) or research office, though in larger institutions (pre- and post-92) there is more likelihood that responsibility will be spread among other areas, often at research centre or faculty level. Smaller and specialist institutions are more likely to centralise responsibility.
There is a greater likelihood that income records of UK and overseas funded research collaborations will be kept than the actual location, partner details or subject areas of such linkages, and while general this is even more true for larger institutions. On issues less directly related to income, such as the recording of details
40

of partners, subject areas and countries where IRC occurs, information is more likely to be held in departments, faculties and schools. Small institutions and SI/GCs appear more likely to collate and report on information by subject area (perhaps because subject area information is more important to smaller institutions with a narrower IRC profile) but they are also more likely not to record such information at all.
Surprisingly little data are held centrally on where overseas research students are located geographically, or with what kind of partner institutions. Medium sized and
Post-92 institutions are most likely to record and hold data centrally. For between a third and a half of small and specialised respondents these issues do not apply. The majority of institutions are content to hold information on unfunded research collaborations at department, school or faculty level if they hold it at all. Around half of large and pre-92 institutions do not hold such information at all. However SI/GCs are the most likely to collate, report and hold this information centrally as well as at more local levels.
Despite the variability by institution type and size there is a relatively high degree of uniformity regarding the usefulness of IRC data, with all types of HEI almost as likely to use it for a variety of purposes relating to their external image (RAE, external bodies and publicity material where appropriate) and their own internal reporting.
Collation of the various strands of IRC information is more likely to be concentrated in smaller and more specialised institutions, reflecting the structures and processes for accumulating and reporting such information.
There does seem to be an interaction between size and type of institution working at different levels and in different ways throughout our findings. For example there is a tendency for pre-92 and post-92 institutions to be more involved with funded IRC and to have research links through postgraduate students, and these institutions are also likely to be larger HEIs than the specialist institutions that exhibit a different set of
IRC behaviours and relationships. As we have seen, SI/GC and smaller institutions are more likely to be interested in unfunded research links between academics and to record information centrally.
It follows that responsibilities are structured in relation to size and financial importance: there is more of a tendency to concentrate responsibilities and hold information centrally in small and SI/GC institutions, perhaps because either internationalisation and research links are more important to these institutions or because these institutions are not large enough to devolve such responsibilities to department, school or faculty level. In SI/GCs where individual specialist subject areas (departments, schools or faculties) might be expected to have more autonomy, it could be that senior faculty members also have senior management roles and responsibility at a lower level would be unnecessary duplication.
Smaller and SI/GCs are more interested in unfunded research, perhaps because they value the prestige and the development of their IRC profile, coming from a lower base. For larger and pre- Post-92s on the other hand, international research collaborations may be a long-entrenched and important element of their business
41

model and therefore that financial information has a much higher value to these organisations. Larger organisations also have additional layers of responsibility at department, school or faculty level and it is at these levels that less financial information can be held.
Authors
Colin McCaig
Sue Drew
Dave Marsden
Peggy Haughton
CEIR & CRE,
Sheffield Hallam University,
January 2008
42

10 May 2007
Dear colleague
We would be very grateful for your help with a research study we are conducting on behalf of the DfES. The aim is to "reveal the extent to which HEIs monitor and coordinate within their own institutions any research collaboration that takes place between the institution and those abroad". The DfES is interested in exploring the extent to which HEIs are developing agendas around internationalisation and such coordination is being seen as an indicator. The findings will feed into the Prime
Minister’s Initiative for International Education so will play an important role in the development of the higher education sector as a whole.
Please can you note that the focus of this research is international research collaborations only, rather than research in general, and that we do not require any information about actual collaborations but, rather, about institutional processes. All information provided by HEIs will be confidential to the research team and will be aggregated and anonymised in reporting to the DfES. It will not be possible to identify any individual HEI in any report published from this survey.
We hope that you yourself will find it helpful to complete our questionnaire, as the pilot for our study has suggested that this may help in pulling together information on this topic. The study should provide valuable information for the sector as a whole.
Our pilot has suggested that those with a central role dealing with externally funded research project might be the best starting point for us. We are only sending one request to each HEI and very much hope that you will be able to complete it for us.
We think that you may need to consult others in your institution. This may include whoever is centrally responsible for research degrees and others with an institutional overview or a research responsibility in departments/ schools/faculties (e.g. assistant deans).
We would be very grateful if you could complete and return the attached questionnaire by 8th June in the pre-paid envelope provided. Alternatively, you can complete it online at http://creonline.shu.ac.uk/tne.pdf
There is no statutory obligation for this information, however your help would be greatly appreciated. A member of the research team will telephone you in the next few weeks to see if you have any queries or concerns. Thank you very much for your help.
Yours sincerely
43

Table 1 - PVC responsibilities: by country
England Scotland
N % N %
PVC responsible for both research and internationalisation
PVC responsible for research
PVC responsible for internationalisation
17
77
47
23.9
86.5
56.0
4
9
9
28.6
81.8
75.0
1
7
2
N
Wales
%
20.0
100.0
33.3
1
0
Northern
Ireland
N %
2 100
50
-
Table 2 - Research strategy by country
England
Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation?
Does your institution have a research strategy?
Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy?
Does your institution have another strategy, please specify?*
N
30
76
52
5
%
43.5
95.0
70.3
25.0
12
8
0
Scotland
N
7
%
53.8
100.0
72.7
-
8
4
-
N
1
Wales
%
20.0
100.0
66.7
-
3
1
-
Northern
Ireland
N %
0 -
100.0
100.0
-
44

Table 3 - Strategy for international research collaborations: by country
Yes % No % NA
England
Scotland
Wales
NI
Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation?
Does your institution have a research strategy?
Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy?
Does your institution have another strategy, please specify?
Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation?
Does your institution have a research strategy?
Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy?
Does your institution have another strategy, please specify?
Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation?
Does your institution have a research strategy?
Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy?
Does your institution have another strategy, please specify?
Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation?
Does your institution have a research strategy?
Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy?
Does your institution have another strategy, please specify?
30
76
52
5
7
12 100.0
8
-
1
3
1
-
-
3
1
1
43.5
95.0
70.3
25.0
53.8
72.7
-
20.0
100.0
100.0
-
100.0
100.0
100.0
38
3
20
4
6
-
3
1
4
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
55.1
3.8
27.0
20.0
46.2
-
27.3
100.0
80.0
-
-
-
100.0
-
-
-
1
1
2
11
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.3
2.7
55.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
%
1.4
45

Table 4 - Strategy for international research collaborations: by Type
Yes % No %
Pre-92
Post-92
SI/GC
Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation?
Does your institution have a research strategy?
Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy?
Does your institution have another strategy, please specify?
Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation?
Does your institution have a research strategy?
Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy?
Does your institution have another strategy, please specify?
Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation?
Does your institution have a research strategy?
Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy?
Does your institution have another strategy, please specify?
26
39
26
3
9
39
26
2
3
22
13
-
61.9
95.1
72.2
37.5
28.1
97.5
72.2
18.2
21.4
95.7
65.0
-
16
2
10
2
23
-
9
2
10
1
6
1
38.1
4.9
27.8
25.0
71.9
-
25.0
18.2
71.4
4.3
30.0
50.0
NA
-
-
-
3
-
1
1
7
1
-
1
1
%
-
-
-
37.5
-
2.5
2.8
63.6
7.1
-
5.0
50.0
Table 5 - Strategy for international research collaborations: by Size
Yes % No %
Large
Medium
Small
Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation?
Does your institution have a research strategy?
Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy?
Does your institution have another strategy, please specify?
Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation?
Does your institution have a research strategy?
Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy?
Does your institution have another strategy, please specify?
Does your institution have a strategy that combines research and internationalisation?
Does your institution have a research strategy?
Does your institution have an internationalisation strategy?
Does your institution have another strategy, please specify?
19
38
25
4
12
22
-
7
29
18
1
50.0
92.7
69.4
30.8
44.4
33 100.0
73.3
-
30.4
96.7
69.2
16.7
19
2
10
3
15
-
8
-
15
1
7
2
50.0
4.9
27.8
23.1
55.6
-
26.7
-
65.2
3.3
26.9
33.3
NA
-
1
1
6
-
-
-
2
1
-
1
3
%
-
2.4
2.8
46.2
-
-
-
100.0
4.3
-
3.8
50.0
46

Table 6 - Content of international research collaboration strategy: by country
England
Scotland
Wales
NI
Does your strategy...
specify particular countries or regions?
refer to a focus on specific types of partnership?
specify subject areas?
have income targets?
other targets?* specify particular countries or regions?
refer to a focus on specific types of partnership?
specify subject areas?
have income targets?
other targets?* specify particular countries or regions?
refer to a focus on specific types of partnership?
specify subject areas?
have income targets?
other targets?* specify particular countries or regions?
refer to a focus on specific types of partnership?
specify subject areas?
have income targets?
other targets?*
Yes
29
39
18
8
12
5
8
3
3
2
1
1
4
2
3
1
%
39.2%
53.4%
24.7%
10.8%
19.7%
45.5%
72.7%
27.3%
27.3%
25.0%
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
66.7%
75.0%
33.3%
No
38
2
7
7
4
1
26
45
58
38
5
1
1
2
1
1
1
%
51.4%
35.6%
61.6%
78.4%
62.3%
45.5%
18.2%
63.6%
63.6%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
33.3%
25.0%
66.7%
100.0%
NA
7
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
%
9.5%
8 11.0%
10 13.7%
8 10.8%
11 18.0%
1 9.1%
9.1%
9.1%
9.1%
25.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
Table 7 - Central committees: by country
England Scotland
N % N %
Does your institution have a central committee responsible for research and internationalisation?
Does your institution have a central committee responsible for research?
Does your institution have a central committee responsible for internationalisation?
Does your institution have another central committee dealing with research/ internationalisation, please specify?*
9
88
32
4
14.1
97.8
40.5
25.0
2
13
4
-
18.2
92.9
36.4
-
N
Wales
%
1 16.7
Northern
Ireland
N %
2 66.7
7
2
-
87.5
40.0
-
3 100.0
2 100.0
1 100.0
47

Table 8 & 9 - Central committees: by Type and Size
Does your institution have...
Pre-92
N %
Type
Post-92
N %
SI/GC
N %
Large
N % a central committee responsible for research and internationalisation?
a central committee responsible for research?
a central committee responsible for internationalisation?
another central committee please specify?*
8 20.0
3 9.7
3
Size
Medium
N %
Small
N %
22.7
49 94.2
42 97.7
21 100.0
48 94.1
35 97.2
29 100.0
20 45.5
11 30.6
9
2 22.2
1 14.3
8
23.1
52.9
18 43.9
10 32.3
12 48.0
47.1
4 10.8
5 20.0
5
1 16.7
1 16.7
2 40.0
Table 10 - Level of research decision making: by country
Is the highest level committee dealing with research in the institution responsible for....
the research strategy?
externally funded research?
the RAE?
research students/studentships?
unfunded research?
England
N
91
77
86
56
49
%
94.8
82.8
90.5
60.9
53.8
Scotland
N
14
12
13
8
8
%
93.3
80.0
86.7
57.1
57.1
N
8
6
7
3
4
Wales
%
100.0
75.0
87.5
37.5
50.0
4
4
Northern
Ireland
N %
100.0
4
100.0
100.0
4 100.0
1 33.3
Tables 11 & 12 - Level of research decision making: by Type and Size
Is the highest level committee dealing with research in the institution responsible for....
the research strategy?
externally funded research?
the RAE?
research students/studentships?
unfunded research?
Pre-92
N %
Type
Post-92
N %
SI/GC
N %
Large
N %
Size
Medium
N %
Small
N %
55 94.8
43 100.0
20 87.0
50 94.3
39 100.0
29 90.6
50 89.3
33 78.6
17 73.9
37 74.0
36 92.3
27 84.4
53 94.6
39 88.6
19 82.6
44 86.3
39 97.5
28 87.5
36 64.3
22 52.4
14 66.7
28 53.8
26 70.3
18 60.0
26 47.3
21 51.2
15 71.4
21 42.0
21 56.8
20 66.7
48

Table 13 - Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?: overall
Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?
Count
%
Yes, to a significant extent
18
Yes, to some extent
74
14.0% 57.4%
No
37
28.7%
Table 14 - Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?: by country
Count
Yes, to a significant extent
13
Yes, to some extent
57
Country England
Scotland
Wales
Northern
Ireland
Open
University
Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?
Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?
Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?
Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?
Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
13.4%
3
20.0%
1
12.5%
1
33.3%
58.8%
7
46.7%
6
75.0%
2
66.7%
No
27
27.8%
5
33.3%
1
12.5%
1
100.0%
49

Table 15 - Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?: by type
Count
Yes, to a significant extent
10
Yes, to some extent
38
No
Pre /
Post /
SI
Pre Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?
Post Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?
SI/GC Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?
%
Count
%
Count
%
17.5%
3
6.7%
5
22.7%
66.7%
28
62.2%
6
27.3%
9
15.8%
14
31.1%
11
50.0%
Table 16 - Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?: by type
Size of institution
Count
Yes, to a significant extent
5
Yes, to some extent
39
Large Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?
Medium Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research
Small collaborations?
Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically to international research collaborations?
%
Count
%
Count
%
9.4%
7
17.5%
6
19.4%
73.6%
22
55.0%
11
35.5%
No
9
17.0%
11
27.5%
14
45.2%
Table 17 - Monitoring strategies by country
Country England
Scotland
Wales
Northern
Ireland
Is the monitoring?
Is the monitoring?
Is the monitoring?
Is the monitoring?
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Broad brush Fairly specific
22
40.0%
27
49.1%
4
44.4%
4
100.0%
4
44.4%
1
50.0%
Detailed
6
10.9%
1
11.1%
1
50.0%
50

Table 18 - Monitoring strategies by type
Pre /
Post /
SI
Pre
Post
Is the monitoring?
Is the monitoring?
SI/GC Is the monitoring?
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Broad brush Fairly specific
18 16
47.4% 42.1%
8
44.4%
4
28.6%
7
38.9%
9
64.3%
Detailed
4
10.5%
3
16.7%
1
7.1%
Table 19 - Monitoring strategies by size
Size of institution
Large
Small
Is the monitoring?
Medium Is the monitoring?
Is the monitoring?
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Broad brush Fairly specific
12 14
40.0%
13
46.7%
8
56.5%
5
29.4%
34.8%
10
58.8%
Detailed
4
13.3%
2
8.7%
2
11.8%
51

Table 20 - Types of international research collaboration: by country
No Yes
Country England
Scotland
Wales
Do you have international research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies?
Do you have international research collaborations funded by other international organisations?
Do you have international research collaborations funded by UK public bodies?
Do you have postgraduate research where students are located overseas?
Do you have postgraduate research where students' supervision is shared with an overseas partner?
Do you have unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues?
Do you have international research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies?
Do you have international research collaborations funded by other international organisations?
Do you have international research collaborations funded by UK public bodies?
Do you have postgraduate research where students are located overseas?
Do you have postgraduate research where students' supervision is shared with an overseas partner?
Do you have unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues?
Do you have international research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies?
Do you have international research collaborations funded by other international organisations?
Do you have international research collaborations funded by UK public bodies?
Do you have postgraduate research where students are located overseas?
Do you have postgraduate research where students' supervision is shared with
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
20 79
7
46.7%
7
46.7%
4
26.7%
2
25.0%
3
37.5%
4
50.0%
5
62.5%
5
62.5%
34.3%
8
8.1%
4
26.7%
2
13.3%
2
13.3%
20.2%
25
25.3%
15
15.2%
24
24.2%
34
8
53.3%
8
53.3%
11
73.3%
6
75.0%
5
62.5%
4
50.0%
3
37.5%
3
37.5%
65.7%
91
91.9%
11
73.3%
13
86.7%
13
86.7%
79.8%
74
74.7%
84
84.8%
75
75.8%
65
52

Northern
Ireland
Open
University an overseas partner?
Do you have unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues?
Do you have international research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies?
Do you have international research collaborations funded by other international organisations?
Do you have international research collaborations funded by UK public bodies?
Do you have postgraduate research where students are located overseas?
Do you have postgraduate research where students' supervision is shared with an overseas partner?
Do you have unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues?
Do you have international research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies?
Do you have international research collaborations funded by other international organisations?
Do you have international research collaborations funded by UK public bodies?
Do you have postgraduate research where students are located overseas?
Do you have postgraduate research where students' supervision is shared with an overseas partner?
Do you have unfunded research where academics collaborate with overseas colleagues?
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
1
100.0%
1
100.0%
1
100.0%
50.0%
2
50.0%
1
100.0%
1
100.0%
1
100.0%
6
75.0%
3
75.0%
2
50.0%
3
75.0%
2
50.0%
2
2
25.0%
1
25.0%
2
50.0%
1
25.0%
2
50.0%
2
50.0%
2
50.0%
53

Table 21 - Responsibility of lead person: by country
Yes
Country England
Scotland
Wales
Northern
Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre?
Count
%
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students?
Are these combined, and if so how?
Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students?
Are these combined, and if so how?
Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students?
Are these combined, and if so how?
Does your
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
78
89.7%
51
66.2%
34
45.9%
78
91.8%
28
52.8%
13
92.9%
9
64.3%
6
46.2%
11
78.6%
3
60.0%
7
87.5%
5
62.5%
3
50.0%
6
75.0%
3
60.0%
4
2
25.0%
2
33.3%
1
12.5%
1
20.0%
No
7
8.0%
24
31.2%
36
48.6%
6
7.1%
17
32.1%
4
28.6%
6
46.2%
2
14.3%
2
40.0%
N/A
2
2.3%
2
1.2%
8
15.1%
1
7.1%
1
7.1%
2.6%
4
5.4%
1
1
7.7%
1
7.1%
1
12.5%
1
12.5%
1
16.7%
1
12.5%
1
20.0%
54

Ireland
Open
University department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students?
Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students?
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
1
100.0%
100.0%
1
100.0%
1
100.0%
1
100.0%
1
100.0%
1
100.0%
1
100.0%
55

Table 22 - Responsibility of lead person: by type
Yes
Pre /
Post /
SI
Pre
Post
SI/GC
Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre?
Count
%
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students?
Are these combined, and if so how?
Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students?
Are these combined, and if so how?
Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students?
Are these combined, and if so how?
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
47
90.4%
30
61.2%
19
41.3%
44
86.3%
10
37.0%
40
90.9%
24
66.7%
16
47.1%
39
95.1%
17
63.0%
16
88.9%
13
81.3%
9
60.0%
14
82.4%
7
77.8%
18
52.9%
2
4.9%
8
29.6%
2
11.1%
3
18.8%
6
40.0%
3
17.6%
2
22.2%
No
2
3.8%
15
30.6%
20
43.5%
4
7.8%
10
37.0%
3
6.8%
12
33.3%
N/A
3
5.8%
4
8.2%
7
15.2%
3
5.9%
7
25.9%
1
2.3%
2
7.4%
56

Table 23 - Responsibility of lead person: by size
Yes
Size of institution
Large
Medium
Small
Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre?
Count
%
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students?
Are these combined, and if so how?
Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students?
Are these combined, and if so how?
Does your department/faculty have a head of research institute/division/centre?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on externally funded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on unfunded research?
Does your department/faculty have a person leading on postgraduate research students?
Are these combined, and if so how?
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
47
95.9%
30
69.8%
17
41.5%
43
91.5%
14
50.0%
32
86.5%
20
60.6%
16
53.3%
31
88.6%
12
63.2%
24
85.7%
17
68.0%
11
45.8%
23
85.2%
8
50.0%
11
36.7%
1
2.9%
4
21.1%
3
10.7%
8
32.0%
12
50.0%
4
14.8%
6
37.5%
No
2
4.1%
12
27.9%
21
51.2%
4
8.5%
10
35.7%
2
5.4%
10
30.3%
N/A
1
4.2%
2
12.5%
4
14.3%
3
8.1%
3
9.1%
3
10.0%
3
8.6%
3
15.8%
1
3.6%
1
2.3%
3
7.3%
57

Table 24 - IRC responsibilities of the lead person: by country
Yes, to a significant extent
Yes, to some extent
Country England Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Count
%
21 45
27.6% 59.2%
Scotland
Wales
Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on unfunded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on unfunded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on unfunded research
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
16
32.7%
9
26.5%
24
34.3%
8
38.1%
2
16.7%
3
37.5%
2
33.3%
3
30.0%
1
16.7%
1
25.0%
1
33.3%
30
61.2%
21
61.8%
33
47.1%
12
57.1%
5
41.7%
3
37.5%
3
50.0%
2
20.0%
1
100.0%
3
50.0%
1
25.0%
1
33.3%
No
10
2
33.3%
2
50.0%
1
33.3%
13
18.6%
1
4.8%
5
41.7%
2
13.2%
3
6.1%
4
11.8%
25.0%
1
16.7%
5
50.0%
58

Northern
Ireland
Open
University specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on unfunded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
2
50.0%
1
20.0%
1
100.0%
1
25.0%
3
60.0%
2
66.7%
1
100.0%
1
100.0%
1
25.0%
1
20.0%
1
33.3%
1
100.0%
1
100.0%
1
100.0%
59

Table 25 - IRC responsibilities of the lead person: by type
Yes, to a significant extent
Yes, to some extent
Pre /
Post /
SI
Pre Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Count
%
14 25
29.8% 53.2%
Post
SI/GC
Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on unfunded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on unfunded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on unfunded research
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
10
34.5%
7
36.8%
17
39.5%
4
50.0%
4
10.5%
4
18.2%
2
12.5%
7
22.6%
3
20.0%
6
46.2%
6
50.0%
3
33.3%
17
58.6%
11
57.9%
17
39.5%
4
50.0%
28
73.7%
16
72.7%
11
68.8%
16
51.6%
10
66.7%
2
15.4%
3
25.0%
4
44.4%
No
8
17.0%
2
6.9%
1
5.3%
9
20.9%
8
25.8%
2
13.3%
5
38.5%
6
15.8%
2
9.1%
3
18.8%
3
25.0%
2
22.2%
60

specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Count
%
Count
%
6
50.0%
2
50.0%
3
25.0%
2
50.0%
3
25.0%
61

Table 26 - IRC responsibilities of the lead person: by size
Yes, to a significant extent
Yes, to some extent
Size of institution
Large Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Count
%
9 29
20.0% 64.4%
Medium
Small
Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on unfunded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on unfunded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the head of research institute/division/centre specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on externally funded research specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on unfunded research
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
8
29.6%
4
26.7%
12
33.3%
5
38.5%
8
25.0%
6
30.0%
5
27.8%
11
37.9%
3
30.0%
7
33.3%
6
37.5%
3
27.3%
17
63.0%
9
60.0%
14
38.9%
6
46.2%
19
59.4%
12
60.0%
10
55.6%
13
44.8%
7
70.0%
7
33.3%
7
43.8%
7
63.6%
No
7
7
33.3%
3
18.8%
1
9.1%
10
27.8%
2
15.4%
5
15.6%
2
15.6%
2
7.4%
2
13.3%
10.0%
3
16.7%
5
17.2%
62

specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the lead on postgraduate research students specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the combined role person specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Count
%
Count
%
7
33.3%
1
25.0%
9
42.9%
3
75.0%
5
23.8%
63

Table 27 - School / department / faculty level committees: by country
Yes No N/A
Country England Is there a research committee in each department/school/faculty?
Count
%
74 15
78.7%
48
16.0%
34
5
5.3%
3
Scotland
Wales
Northern
Ireland
Open
University
Is there a separate committee in each department/school/faculty that deals with postgraduate degrees?
Is there a research committee in each department/school/faculty?
Is there a separate committee in each department/school/faculty that deals with postgraduate degrees?
Is there a research committee in each department/school/faculty?
Is there a separate committee in each department/school/faculty that deals with postgraduate degrees?
Is there a research committee in each department/school/faculty?
Is there a separate committee in each department/school/faculty that deals with postgraduate degrees?
Is there a research committee in each department/school/faculty?
Is there a separate committee in each department/school/faculty that deals with postgraduate degrees?
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
56.5%
14
93.3%
9
64.3%
6
75.0%
3
37.5%
2
50.0%
2
66.7%
1
100.0%
40.0%
1
6.7%
5
35.7%
2
25.0%
5
62.5%
2
50.0%
1
33.3%
1
100.0%
3.5%
64

Table 28 - IRC responsibility at school level: by country
Country England
Scotland
Wales
Northern
Ireland
Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes, to a significant extent
12
Yes, to some extent
51
16.9%
8
17.4%
1
8.3%
1
14.3%
1
16.7%
1
33.3%
1
50.0%
71.8%
30
65.2%
8
66.7%
4
57.1%
3
50.0%
1
33.3%
No
8
33.3%
1
33.3%
1
100.0%
1
50.0%
11.3%
8
17.4%
3
25.0%
2
28.6%
2
65

Table 29 - IRC responsibility at school level: by type
Yes, to a significant extent
10
Yes, to some extent
32
Pre /
Post /
SI
Pre
Post
SI/GC
Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
23.3%
8
25.0%
3
7.9%
3
14.3%
1
11.1%
74.4%
19
59.4%
25
65.8%
12
57.1%
5
55.6%
4
80.0%
No
1
2.3%
5
15.6%
10
26.3%
6
28.6%
3
33.3%
1
20.0%
66

Table 30 - IRC responsibility at school level: by size
Yes, to a significant extent
7
Yes, to some extent
29
Size of institution
Large
Medium
Small
Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the research committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Does the separate committee specifically deal with international research collaborations?
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
16.7%
5
15.2%
6
17.1%
6
31.6%
1
7.7%
69.0%
20
60.6%
24
68.6%
10
52.6%
9
69.2%
5
83.3%
No
6
14.3%
8
24.2%
5
14.3%
3
15.8%
3
23.1%
1
16.7%
Table 31 - A central office for externally funded projects: overall
No
Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?
Count
%
Yes
111
85.4%
19
14.6%
67

Table 32 - A central office for externally funded projects: by country
Yes No
Country England
Scotland
Wales
Northern
Ireland
Open
University
Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?
Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?
Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?
Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?
Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
84
85.7%
14
93.3%
8
100.0%
2
66.7%
1
100.0%
14
14.3%
1
6.7%
1
33.3%
Table 33 - A central office for externally funded projects: by type
Yes No
Pre /
Post /
SI
Pre Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?
Post Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?
SI/GC Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
56
96.6%
38
84.4%
15
68.2%
2
3.4%
7
15.6%
7
31.8%
68

Table 34 - A central office for externally funded projects: by size
Yes No
Size of institution
Large Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?
Medium Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?
Small Do you have a central office that deals with externally funded research projects?
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
49
90.7%
37
92.5%
23
74.2%
5
9.3%
3
7.5%
8
25.8%
Table 35 - Responsibility for the central office: by country
A senior manager for research
A senior manager in
'Registry' or equivalent
A senior manager for business or enterprise
A senior manager in corporate planning
Other, please specify
Country
England
Under whose responsibility does it sit?
Scotland
Under whose responsibility does it sit?
Count %
38 45.2%
Count %
9 64.3%
Wales
Under whose responsibility does it sit?
Northern
Ireland
Under whose responsibility does it sit?
Count %
2 25.0%
Count %
1 50.0%
Open
University
Under whose responsibility does it sit?
Count
1
%
100.0
%
12 14.3%
16 19.0% 3 21.4% 3 37.5%
1 1.2%
17 20.2% 2 14.3%
1 12.5%
2 25.0% 1 50.0%
Table 36 - Central postgraduate office: overall
Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?
Yes
No
Count
105
25
%
80.8%
19.2%
69

Table 37 - Central postgraduate office: by country
Yes
Country England
Scotland
Wales
Northern
Ireland
Open
University
Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?
Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?
Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?
Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?
Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
81
82.7%
13
86.7%
6
75.0%
2
66.7%
1
100.0%
No
17
17.3%
2
13.3%
2
25.0%
1
33.3%
Table 38 - Central postgraduate office: by type
Yes
Pre /
Post /
SI
Pre Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?
Post Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?
SI/GC Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
48
82.8%
40
88.9%
15
68.2%
No
10
17.2%
5
11.1%
7
31.8%
Table 39 - Central postgraduate office: by size
Size of institution
Large Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?
Medium Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?
Small Do you have a central office that deals with postgraduate research students?
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
48
88.9%
34
85.0%
21
67.7%
No
6
11.1%
6
15.0%
10
32.3%
70

Table 40 - Responsibility for the postgraduate office: by country
A senior manager for research
A senior manager in
'Registry' or equivalent
A senior manager for business or enterprise
Other, please specify
Country
England
Under whose responsibility does it sit?
Scotland
Under whose responsibility does it sit?
Wales
Under whose responsibility does it sit?
Northern
Ireland
Under whose responsibility does it sit?
Count %
24 30.4%
Count %
5 38.5%
Count %
2 33.3%
Count %
1 50.0%
2 33.3% 39 49.4%
1 1.3%
15 19.0%
5 38.5%
1 7.7%
2 15.4% 2 33.3%
1 50.0%
Table 41 - Recording of income from overseas funded projects: by country
England recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Scotland recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Wales
Northern
Ireland recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Open
University recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
3
2
4
4
3
12
15
14
4
4
4
Count
30
41
21
62
98
93
7
2
5
8
2
5
2
No
26.7
26.7
26.7
80.0
100.0
93.3
%
30.3
41.4
21.2
62.6
99.0
93.9
25.0
62.5
25.0
62.5
100.0
87.5
50.0
75.0
50.0
100.0
100.0
75.0
Count
69
58
78
37
1
6
11
11
11
3
Yes
%
69.7
58.6
78.8
37.4
1.0
6.1
73.3
73.3
73.3
20.0
1
6
3
6
3
1
2
1
2
6.7
75.0
37.5
75.0
37.5
12.5
50.0
25.0
50.0
1
1
1
1
1
25.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1
1
100.0
100.0
71

Table 42 - Recording of income from UK funded research projects that have international collaborations: by country
No
England
Scotland
Wales recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Northern Ireland recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Open University recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
62
98
93
5
6
Count
31
48
26
5
12
15
14
2
5
2
3
2
4
4
3
7
2
6
8
1
1
100.0
100.0
3
6
2
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
6
10
9
10
3
Count
68
Yes
%
68.7
51
73
37
1
51.5
73.7
37.4
1.0
6.1
66.7
60.0
66.7
20.0
6.7
75.0
37.5
75.0
25.0
25.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
12.5
50.0
25.0
50.0
62.6
99.0
93.9
33.3
40.0
%
31.3
48.5
26.3
33.3
80.0
100.0
93.3
25.0
62.5
25.0
75.0
100.0
87.5
50.0
75.0
50.0
100.0
100.0
75.0
72

Table 43 - Central Office titles
Title: research office or support
Pre-92 large
Pre-92 medium
Pre-92 small
Post-92 large
Post-92 medium
Post-92 small
SI/GC large
Total
Title: enterprise or business development
Pre-92 large
Pre-92 medium
Post-92 large
Post-92 medium
SI/GC small
Total
Title: referring to funding
Pre-92 large
Pre-92 small
Post-92 large
Post-92 medium
SI/GC small
Total
Title: linked to knowledge transfer
Pre-92 medium
Post-92 large
Post-92 medium
Post-92 small
SI/GC medium
SI/GC small
Total
Title: linked to development or innovation
Pre-92 large
Pre-92 medium
Post-92 large
Post-92 medium
SI/GC small
Total
Title: linked to graduate study
Post-92 large
Post-92 medium
Post-92 small
Si/GC
Total
Grand total (including 3 others*)
1
1
1
1
1
14
N
4
2
6
4
1
25
N
5
7
8
2
1
4
20
N
N
4
3
2
4
2
1
1
1
1
13
N
1
5
88
3
7
1
2
8
1
2
N
*Three responding HEIs have a central office titled with reference to strategy (all post-92s, one small, two large).
73

Table 44 - Recording the types of international partners: by country
No Yes
England
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland recorded collated/reported on
Count
51
66
45 held centrally held in dept/school/faculty 58 not recorded at all 87 does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally
93
7
11
8
93.9
46.7
73.3
53.3
held in dept/school/faculty 10 not recorded at all 13 does not apply recorded
15
4
66.7
86.7
100.0
50.0
%
51.5
66.7
45.5
58.6
87.9
Count
48
33
54
41
12
4
4
7
6
8
5
2 collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally
7
3
6
7
7
3
4
2
87.5
37.5
75.0
87.5
87.5
75.0
100.0
50.0
2
1
1
5
1
1
2 held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Open University recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
1
1
1
1
3
1
4
4
100.0
100.0
75.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1
1
50.0
12.5
62.5
25.0
12.5
12.5
25.0
6.1
53.3
26.7
46.7
33.3
13.3
%
48.5
33.3
54.5
41.4
12.1
50.0
25.0
100.0
74

England recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Scotland recorded
Wales collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally
Northern
Ireland held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Open
University recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Table 45 - Recording where funded IRC takes place: by country
No Yes
1
1
3
1
1
1
7
3
15
4
11
8
10
13
4
4
4
2
7
3
6
7
58
87
93
7
Count
51
66
45
100.0
50.0
100.0
100.0
75.0
87.5
87.5
75.0
58.6
87.9
93.9
46.7
%
51.5
66.7
45.5
100.0
50.0
87.5
37.5
73.3
53.3
66.7
86.7
6
8
41
12
Count
48
33
54
5
2
4
7
1
1
2
1
4
1
5
2
75.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1
1
50.0
25.0
100.0
50.0
12.5
62.5
25.0
12.5
12.5
25.0
41.4
12.1
6.1
53.3
%
48.5
33.3
54.5
26.7
46.7
33.3
13.3
75

Table 46 - Recording of the subject of international research collaborations by country
No Yes
England
Scotland
Wales recorded collated/reported on
Count
52
69 held centrally 49 held in dept/school/faculty 55
%
52.5
69.7
49.5
55.6
Count
47
%
47.5
30
50
44
30.3
50.5
44.4
not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on
92
92
11
14
92.9
92.9
73.3
93.3
7
7
4
1
7.1
7.1
26.7
6.7
held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Northern Ireland recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
4
5
4
8
10
8
11 73.3
15 100.0
6
7
3
4
3
4
3
3
66.7
53.3
50.0
100.0
50.0
62.5
75.0
87.5
75.0
100.0
75.0
100.0
75.0
75.0
5
7
4
4
2
1
4
3
1
1
1
1
33.3
46.7
26.7
50.0
50.0
37.5
25.0
12.5
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
Open University recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
1
1
1
1
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1 100.0
76

England recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Scotland recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty
Wales not recorded at all does not apply recorded
Northern
Ireland collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Open
University recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Table 47 - Recording the number of postgraduate research students located overseas: by country
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
4
6
2
3
3
6
8
7
4
7
10
7
8
14
13
3
Count
No
45
%
45.5
69
34
69.7
34.3
61
95
88
61.6
96.0
88.9
46.7
53.3
46.7
66.7
93.3
86.7
37.5
100.0
100.0
50.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
75.0
50.0
75.0
75.0
87.5
50.0
75.0
100.0
8
5
8
7
1
2
5
1
4
2
Count
Yes
%
54 54.5
30
65
30.3
65.7
38
4
11
38.4
4.0
11.1
12.5
50.0
25.0
53.3
46.7
53.3
33.3
6.7
13.3
62.5
2
2
1
1
2 50.0
25.0
50.0
25.0
25.0
1 100.0
77

England recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Scotland recorded collated/reported on
Wales held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded
Northern
Ireland collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Open
University recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Table 48 - Recording the type of international partners in research supervision: by country
3
3
4
4
6
2
6
5
11
10
11
13
7
8
6
1
1
2
1
1
1
62
89
82
11
12
Count
No
58
%
58.6
80
50
80.8
50.5
62.6
89.9
82.8
73.3
80.0
50.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
75.0
75.0
100.0
100.0
75.0
62.5
75.0
50.0
73.3
66.7
73.3
86.7
87.5
100.0
75.0
37
10
17
4
3
4
2
4
5
1
Count
Yes
%
41 41.4
19
49
19.2
49.5
26.7
33.3
26.7
13.3
12.5
37.4
10.1
17.2
26.7
20.0
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
2 50.0
25.0
25.0
37.5
25.0
50.0
25.0
25.0
1 100.0
78

England recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Scotland recorded collated/reported on held centrally
Wales held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty
Northern
Ireland not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Open
University recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Table 49 - Recording the countries where students are located: by country
4
2
3
4
2
3
7
6
1
1
1
1
1
11
14
13
4
6
4
5
94
88
8
10
8
Count
No
%
49 49.5
72 72.7
41
60
41.4
60.6
94.9
88.9
53.3
66.7
53.3
75.0
100.0
100.0
50.0
87.5
75.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
73.3
93.3
86.7
50.0
75.0
50.0
62.5
2
4
4
1
2
4
3
2
1
1
2
1
7
5
7
5
11
Count
Yes
%
50 50.5
27 27.3
58
39
58.6
39.4
5.1
11.1
46.7
33.3
46.7
26.7
6.7
13.3
50.0
25.0
50.0
37.5
12.5
25.0
50.0
25.0
25.0
2 50.0
1 100.0
79

England recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Scotland recorded collated/reported on held centrally
Wales held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty
Northern
Ireland not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Open
University recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Table 50 - Recording the topics/subjects of the research students: by country
4
2
3
4
2
3
7
6
1
1
1
1
1
10
13
13
4
7
4
5
94
89
9
11
9
Count
No
%
51 51.5
75 75.8
43
55
43.4
55.6
94.9
89.9
60.0
73.3
60.0
75.0
100.0
100.0
50.0
87.5
75.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
66.7
86.7
86.7
50.0
87.5
50.0
62.5
2
4
5
2
1
4
3
2
1
1
2
1
6
4
6
5
10
Count
Yes
%
48 48.5
24 24.2
56
44
56.6
44.4
5.1
10.1
40.0
26.7
40.0
33.3
13.3
13.3
50.0
12.5
50.0
37.5
12.5
25.0
50.0
25.0
25.0
2 50.0
1 100.0
80

England recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Scotland recorded collated/reported on
Wales held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded
Northern
Ireland collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Open
University recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Table 51 - Recording the number of unfunded research projects involving international collaborations by country
4
3
4
3
6
3
5
5
13
9
7
14
8
8
8
1
1
3
1
1
1
100.0
75.0
100.0
75.0
62.5
62.5
75.0
75.0
86.7
60.0
46.7
93.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
75.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
55
73
90
14
15
Count
No
79
%
79.8
82
76
82.8
76.8
55.6
73.7
90.9
93.3
100.0
9
1
44
26
Count
Yes
%
20 20.2
17
23
17.2
23.2
44.4
26.3
9.1
6.7
8
1
2
6
13.3
40.0
53.3
6.7
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
37.5
37.5
25.0
25.0
1 100.0
81

England recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Scotland recorded collated/reported on
Wales held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded
Northern
Ireland collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Open
University recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Table 52 - Recording the types of international partners / colleagues for unfunded international research: by country
4
3
4
3
6
3
5
5
13
9
7
14
8
8
8
1
1
3
1
1
1
100.0
75.0
100.0
75.0
62.5
62.5
75.0
75.0
86.7
60.0
46.7
93.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
75.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
55
73
90
14
15
Count
No
79
%
79.8
82
76
82.8
76.8
55.6
73.7
90.9
93.3
100.0
9
1
44
26
Count
Yes
%
20 20.2
17
23
17.2
23.2
44.4
26.3
9.1
6.7
8
1
2
6
13.3
40.0
53.3
6.7
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
37.5
37.5
25.0
25.0
1 100.0
82

Table 53 - Recording the types of international partners/colleagues for unfunded international research: by type
Pre recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Post recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
SI/GC recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
36
29
31
42
51
39
38
Count
53
56
53
32
36
13
22
20
13
16
12
No
87.9
84.8
82.6
78.3
63.0
67.4
91.3
%
91.4
96.6
91.4
55.2
62.1
56.5
69.6
52.2
56.5
95.7
87.0
10
17
15
4
7
7
8
Count
5
2
5
26
22
10
1
3
10
7
11
Yes
12.1
15.2
17.4
21.7
37.0
32.6
8.7
%
8.6
3.4
8.6
44.8
37.9
43.5
30.4
47.8
43.5
4.3
13.0
Table 54 - Recording the types of international partners/colleagues for unfunded international research: by size
Large recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Medium recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Small recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
22
20
27
27
35
25
24
36
25
24
Count
46
47
44
29
38
50
34
39
No
85.4
61.0
58.5
87.8
78.1
75.0
68.8
62.5
84.4
84.4
%
85.2
87.0
81.5
53.7
70.4
92.6
82.9
95.1
10
12
5
5
5
7
8
6
16
17
Count
8
4
7
2
7
10
25
16
Yes
14.6
39.0
41.5
12.2
21.9
25.0
31.3
37.5
15.6
15.6
%
14.8
13.0
18.5
46.3
29.6
7.4
17.1
4.9
83

England recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Scotland recorded collated/reported on
Wales held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded
Northern
Ireland collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Open
University recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Table 55 - Recording the topics/subjects of unfunded international research: by country
4
4
4
3
6
3
5
5
14
8
8
14
8
7
8
1
1
2
1
1
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
75.0
62.5
62.5
75.0
75.0
93.3
53.3
53.3
93.3
100.0
87.5
100.0
50.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
52
73
89
15
15
Count
No
79
%
79.8
84
81
84.8
81.8
52.5
73.7
89.9
100.0
100.0
Count
Yes
%
20 20.2
15
18
15.2
18.2
47
26
10
47.5
26.3
10.1
7
1
1
7
6.7
46.7
46.7
6.7
1
3
3
2
1
1
2
12.5
25.0
50.0
37.5
37.5
25.0
25.0
1 100.0
84

England recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Scotland recorded collated/reported on
Wales held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply recorded
Northern
Ireland collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Open
University recorded collated/reported on held centrally held in dept/school/faculty not recorded at all does not apply
Table 57 - Recording the number of university staff involved in unfunded international research: by country
4
4
4
3
6
3
6
4
13
9
7
14
8
7
8
1
1
2
1
1
1
100.0
100.0
100.0
75.0
75.0
50.0
75.0
75.0
86.7
60.0
46.7
93.3
100.0
87.5
100.0
50.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
63
61
89
14
15
Count
No
83
%
83.8
85
84
85.9
84.8
63.6
61.6
89.9
93.3
100.0
36
38
10
1
Count
Yes
%
16 16.2
14
15
14.1
15.2
36.4
38.4
10.1
6.7
8
1
2
6
13.3
40.0
53.3
6.7
1
2
4
2
1
1
2
12.5
25.0
50.0
25.0
50.0
25.0
25.0
1 100.0
85

Table 58 - How this information is used: by country
Count
Yes
%
England
Scotland
Wales
Northern
Ireland
Is the information used in the
RAE submission?
Is the information used in regular reports to committees or managers?
Is the information used in regular reports to external bodies?
Is the information used in response to ad hoc enquiries?
Is the information used for other reasons, please specify?
Is the information used in the
RAE submission?
Is the information used in regular reports to committees or managers?
Is the information used in regular reports to external bodies?
Is the information used in response to ad hoc enquiries?
Is the information used for other reasons, please specify?
Is the information used in the
RAE submission?
Is the information used in regular reports to committees or managers?
Is the information used in regular reports to external bodies?
Is the information used in response to ad hoc enquiries?
Is the information used for other reasons, please specify?
Is the information used in the
RAE submission?
Is the information used in regular reports to committees or managers?
Is the information used in regular reports to external bodies?
Is the information used in response to ad hoc enquiries?
Is the information used for other reasons, please specify?
Open
University
Is the information used in the
RAE submission?
88
74
72
77
4
15
13
11
13
2
6
5
5
5
1
3
2
2
1
1
1
93.6
80.4
79.1
85.6
36.4
100.0
92.9
78.6
92.9
100.0
100.0
71.4
71.4
71.4
50.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Count
No
%
3
17
18
8
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
3.2
18.5
19.8
8.9
18.2
7.1
21.4
7.1
14.3
14.3
14.3
Count
N/A
%
3 3.2
1
1
5
5
1
1
1
1
1.1
1.1
5.6
45.5
14.3
14.3
14.3
50.0
86

Is the information used in regular reports to committees or managers?
Is the information used in regular reports to external bodies?
Is the information used in response to ad hoc enquiries?
Is the information used for other reasons, please specify?
1 100.0
1 100.0
1 100.0
87

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

Ref: DIUS Research Report 08 08
© Sheffield Hallam University 2008
ISBN: 978 1 84478 996 2
Published by the Department for Innovation,
Universities and Skills