Nurse Review of Research Councils: Call for Evidence
Response Form
Please state whether you are responding as an individual, or on behalf of an organisation:
This response is from an organisation, the University of Sussex.
Please write here your name/ the name of your organisation and contact details. This would
help us to contact you if we have further questions.
Dr Ian Carter
University of Sussex
Sussex House
Falmer
Brighton
BN1 9RH
i.carter@sussex.ac.uk
01273 877718
Please provide evidence and views in relation to the following themes:
1. Strategic decision-making
i)
The Research Councils’ processes should support the best research, wherever it is
found. Not to do so, in favour of some nominal or political criterion, risks
undermining the quality of the UK’s research base.
ii) Strategically-focussed programmes can be attractive, but they risk being driven by
shorter-term objectives than typically apply to fundamental research. The balance
between responsive and managed modes has fluctuated over time, and between
Councils. It is not generally clear how strategic choices are made, whether between
Government and the Councils, within the Councils, or between the Councils and their
respective communities. It may be true that a small number of individuals
understand, but it is not well understood by the majority, and hence there is a danger
of a lack of trust in such decisions.
iii) It has become increasingly difficult to attract funding for equipment and
infrastructure. The UKRPIF scheme, which receives many Government plaudits, is
at a scale that is inappropriate for all but the largest schemes, and requires very
substantial partnership, that is not available to most institutions. The vast majority of
equipment requirements are in the tens of thousands of pounds up to the low millions
of pounds. This area is now poorly served.
2. Collaborations and partnerships
i)
There are positive arguments that the funding from the Research Councils might be
made available to relevant analogous organisations as well as to universities and
Council institutes, in order to encourage collaboration across such boundaries, to the
betterment of UK research. However, such a move has taken place elsewhere to the
detriment of the research base, principally caused by the difference in nature, and
hence in deployment of resource, of such entities. One would also have to ensure
that opening access did not have adverse effects on the current system in terms of a
reduction in success rates (i.e. same pot, more applicants) or acting as a substitute
to the analogous bodies’ current sources of funding (e.g. to mitigate the fall in
Government departmental R&D spending). It might be more appropriate to look at
the engagement of such bodies with sources such as Innovate UK and Horizon
2020, given the more applied nature of their work.
ii) Co-ordination between the Councils and Government departments and agencies is
necessary, but can be perceived as piecemeal. Relevant activities may also tend to
reside in the applied part of the research spectrum, and hence should not dominate
Council priorities for fear of undermining the basic research that underpins future
long-term development.
iii) Catalysing collaboration between institutions will happen through mechanisms that
encourage and support individuals to work together. Collaboration via diktat is not
normally successful, and those schemes that seem to require it as an end in itself
are in danger of being a poor use of public funds.
iv) The Councils’ methods of recording and reporting their funding undermines
collaboration, because they record the whole value against the lead individual /
institution. This has the effect of distorting published figures on the amounts
provided to each institution, and can result in institutions and individuals disputing
who should lead a project, to the detriment of the collaboration opportunity. Whilst
this may seem to be an administrative detail, it is issues at this level that drive
behaviours, and hence affect delivery of strategies.
v) Whilst the Councils have become better at handling interdisciplinary research, there
remains a perception that there is more that needs to be done, not least because of
the ever-changing boundaries involved. In the context of REF pressures for
academics to publish in the leading journals of their own disciplines, the Research
Councils have an important role in maintaining the space for creative and innovative
research across the sciences, social sciences and humanities. This should be
reflected in the evidence of their own review processes. The Councils should be
signatories to the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), for example.
3. Balance of funding portfolio
i)
As noted above, the balance of the portfolio between strategic, applied and basic
research needs to be carefully judged, to avoid too much concentration on the near
term. REF impact cases were able to be based on research published up to 20
years before the census period in recognition that societal outcomes can take a long
time to emerge.
ii) There is a substantive concentration of funding in STEM subjects, primarily because
of the higher cost of research in those areas in comparison to non-STEM subjects.
STEM is also perceived to be more likely to have positive economic effects, and
hence hold an attraction. However, non-STEM subjects underpin much of civil
society and public policy. Not to fund these adequately risks increasing societal
challenges, and undermines potential technological developments. The public and
third sectors are substantial beneficiaries of these areas of research, and should not
be disadvantaged in comparison to commercial businesses.
iii) As already noted, the Research Councils’ processes should support the best
research, wherever it is found. To use geographical location as a determinant of
funding risks undermining the very basis of the quality-based decision process.
Equally, artificial geographical constraints militate against strong collaborations that
span those boundaries. The Councils should be about funding the best research; full
stop.
iv) The current trend towards substantive concentration of doctoral training funding
creates the probability that an increasingly significant number of institutions, and
hence individuals, will not be able to access such funding, and may not be able to
access the training environments. The costs of multi-institutional collaborative
doctoral training is potentially higher than that of single institutional allocations. The
Councils do not see the costs, because they have transferred them (unfunded) to
institutions. An additional comment in this space is that much research is not
undertaken in single large ‘laboratories’ (or equivalent), even in the heavy sciences.
A single model of DTPs is therefore not appropriate.
v) There have been some moves within the sector towards funding for ‘research
leaders’ as opposed to that for projects. Whilst it is important to be able to support
individuals, at all stages of the different career paths, we are concerned to ensure
that the standard mechanisms do not concentrate too heavily on this area. In
particular, the types of indicators used to identify ‘leadership’ can be problematic and
political, and reinforce our view with respect to DORA.
4. Effective ways of working
i)
The Councils have previously noted the cost of the peer-review system, and that
much of this resides with research organisations. Whilst demand management has
been one element of the Councils’ response to this, the increasing use of policy
imperatives (each of which may be valid in its own right) is also driving up the costs
of the process.
ii) Identification and funding of strategic areas for research development is appropriate.
However, the opportunity costs of responding to (and the Councils managing) calls
should not be overlooked.
iii) RCUK can be an effective mechanism and voice for the research community.
However, it needs to be careful not to become a PR machine, or to create a burden
on the research sector in order to serve that PR or policy machine.
iv) There has been a trend over a considerable number of years for the Councils to shift
administrative burden from the Councils onto research organisations. The doctoral
training area is a prime example, but approaches to demand management and other
areas of policy are also relevant, as well as some areas of programme management
and funds disbursement. Rather than shift costs, the Councils need to be bolder in
reforming processes and removing costs, especially in terms of the time of
researchers. This may require an approach that is perceived to increase the risk to
public funds, in that current controls are relaxed: there is sometimes more
concentration on financial oversight to the nearest penny than to the value of the
research being undertaken.
v) There has also been a trend towards short-term calls. Whilst these have their place,
in particular in circumstances needing a rapid response (e.g. emergency situations
such as disease outbreaks or natural disasters), they seem to be less relevant to the
advance of fundamental knowledge. We wonder if they are the most appropriate
way to identify the best research, especially where they effectively expect
partnerships already to be in place. A recent example is a multi-million pound call for
a scheme with three weeks’ notice. It makes one wonder if the Councils are just
going through the motions in order to fund something about which they’ve already
decided.
vi) Whilst the funding for the Councils grew prior to 2010, the number of academic staff
grew at a faster rate, driven by student number increases on the back of Government
policy in relation to participation rates. This fundamentally created the tension in the
system, and the pressure on application success rates. Indeed, the situation hasn’t
changed, with the lifting of the cap on student recruitment. A substantial proportion
of applications are fundable but unfunded. These should not be seen or portrayed
as failures or excessive; they are all proposals that meet a required quality threshold.
We recognise the finite budgets that are available, and hence suggest that the
Councils need to work with the sector to develop more active ways of redirecting
these ideas towards possible funding opportunities.
vii) It is not clear whether the review might be considering the organisational structures
of the Councils, even though this was dealt with in the Triennial Review. If
reorganisation is considered, we would note that any structures are nominal, and
create their own boundaries. The skill is in managing across boundaries, wherever
they are, as if they did not exist. The conditions and timeline required for successful
research will vary between disciplines, sub-disciplines and individual topics (which
may span disciplines). The structures and processes therefore need to support that
level of variation, not try to minimise or control it.
5. Any other comments?
i)
Wakeham savings have been implemented mechanistically, but what evidence is
there for actual reductions in the cost base (as opposed the amount the Research
Councils are prepared to pay)? Research Organisations take TRAC and FEC
seriously, but the perception is that the Councils (and others) are more frequently
seeking to find a way round them. There is a real danger that the sector could move
back to the ‘over-trading’ position, as described by Government at the time of the
introduction of TRAC/FEC.
ii) It will be useful and productive over time for the Councils to encourage the sharing of
best practice, amongst themselves and across research organisation, regarding how
best to handle the growing (and differing) requirements for demand management.
The most recent announcement by NERC has some questionable elements,
including increasing the internal burden, potentially disadvantaging smaller
institutions (whose success rate is likely to be more volatile, and hence are more
likely to be subject to sanctions just because of the passage of time), and drawing a
substantial number of institutions into punitive sanctions. The latter element, in
particular, sends a rather more negative signal (about managing misbehaviour,
rather than supporting good practice) than one might expect from a Research
Council.
iii) Different approaches for different disciplines. Whilst harmonisation of administrative
processes is to be welcomed, there’s a potential danger in having a single approach
to all policy matters. Examples include research ethics and open access:

The medical science and social science approaches to research ethics are
necessarily different, even though the underlying principles are consistent
(consider the use of group observational studies in comparison to those with
full individual informed consent);

The move to open access is welcome, and the RCUK policy has galvanised
development. However, as noted in the recent Burgess Review of the
implementation of the policy, the nuances between the disciplines (not just
Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences in comparison to STEM, but between
the constituent elements of those broad groupings) needs to be better
considered. This includes the balance of presentation between the Gold and
Green routes. Better articulation will lead to greater engagement by
researchers, which will ultimately lead to better delivery of the strategy that
the policy is intended to support.
iv) The experience from our academic community of ResearchFish has not been one of
unalloyed success, and it is perceived as a substantial burden. The original plan to
harmonise systems was terminated in 2010, the transition from ROS to
ResearchFish caused duplicated workload for researchers, and the delivered system
did not function correctly.
The closing date for responses to this call for evidence is Friday 17 April 2015 at 23:45.
Please provide your response in Microsoft Word format. In order to be considered, submissions
should be no longer than 3000 words.
Please email or post the completed response form to:
Email: nursereview@bis.gsi.gov.uk
Postal Address:
Nurse Review Secretariat
Research Councils Unit
5/ Victoria 1
Department for Business, Innovations and Skills
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0ET
Information provided in response to this call for evidence, including personal information, may be
subject to publication or release to other parties or to disclosure in accordance with the access
to information regimes.
© Crown copyright 2015
You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the
Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/
This publication is also available on our website at www.gov.uk/bis
BIS/15/126RF