CHSS/P&R/50/8
College of Humanities and Social Science
Planning and Resources Committee, 22 November 2010
This paper was presented to College Research Committee by the Dean of Research on
29 September 2010 for discussion, and is now being presented to P&R for further
discussion and agreement on the way forward.
College strategy governing the establishment, governance and external visibility of
centres, institutes, networks and groups
The role of centres in CHSS
In 2009 a Working Party was established by the College Research Committee at the
behest of the former Head of College to provide a report on Research Centres and
Institutes under the following broad remit (as discussed at College Research
Committee):



To provide a census of what actually exists in CHSS (within Schools, across
Schools, across Colleges) in terms of centres, units, groups, institutes, networks,
etc.
To consider whether it would be useful to have a more structured typology in
terms of mechanisms for setting up, reviewing/reporting activities, and if
necessary disbanding centres and other cognate entities than that which exists at
present.
To judge whether, in the context of a research-intensive University, centres and
institutes ‘work’ effectively for the College and the Schools, in terms of how
they are presented externally.
There were about 80-90 centres or (research) institutes in the 11 Schools of CHSS in
2010. The number is steadily rising, as several are established each year but few are
‘disbanded’ or ‘sunsetted’. There are doubtless many more informal groups and clusters
which exist ‘under the radar’, and which come and go as demand rises and falls. There
are many different types of centres and institutes, ranging from those which are formally
constituted under College guidance dating from 1998/2003, through those which have
been established pursuant to agreements with private and public sector external funders,
to those which appear to have been established in a much more informal manner and are
sometimes rather small scale in membership and activities.
In some Schools, centres/institutes are regarded as core elements of the planning
process, not only in relation to research and KE activities, but also in respect to some
aspects of postgraduate provision and even undergraduate teaching. In other Schools a
more laissez-faire approach is adopted. Although there is much internal variation, most
of CHSS’s centres are engaged in the delivery or promotion of research, although some
have specific knowledge exchange, CPD or outreach functions. Many provide a primary
reference point or community of affinity for postgraduates, both those on
MSc/LLM/MEd programmes and also postgraduate research students, and some also
have responsibility for the delivery of postgraduate and even undergraduate
programmes.
1
CHSS/P&R/50/8
At their best, centres have been crucial catalysts in developing new collaborations
within and across Schools resulting in significant research income inflow and increases
in numbers of research staff and, eventually, PIs/REF-returnable staff. In this context,
they have been especially helpful in facilitating interdisciplinary work which has
attracted important research council support. Overall, many centres, institutes and other
groupings contribute a great deal to both the quantum and quality of research output in
the College and its Schools, including to RAE/REF performance, other activity
indicators which contribute increasingly to the Research Excellence Grant, and other
quantifiable benefits such as KE activity and MSc Programmes.
Less comfortably for the College, centres can sometimes be a source of difficulties and
challenges for the College and the Schools. A rapid review of the websites of many
Schools highlights a number of problems of external presence. Web visibility and level
of activity often do not concord. Inactive centres sometimes have inactive websites
which none the less command high levels of external visibility because of their position
within the University, College or School web ‘tree’. Yet conversely, sometimes quite
active centres do not have websites that mirror their levels of activity.
All too frequently, centres are treated as static entities rather than as processes, or as
vehicles for achieving other goals, such as increases in the quality and quantity of
research outputs or the delivery of a specific KE or even commercialisation goal. This
leads to the absence of an evolutionary approach and to a lack of reflection in many
cases. There is a (probably universal) tendency on the part of academics to be a great
deal better at establishing centres and related entities than they are at abolishing or
‘sunsetting’ them, and at acknowledging that their useful lifespan may be over. At the
margins, there is also the problem of what might be called the ‘vanity centre’ – that is, a
centre which engages little more than one academic member of staff and perhaps a few
postgraduates, which becomes a personal ‘fiefdom’. Overall, while centres often attract
resources to the University and can enhance external partnerships, they can also
consume valuable resources such as time, space and even academic reputational capital.
Jealousies can arise around the operation of centres which may be unsettling within
Schools, particularly for persons who feel excluded from participating in centres, if a
School does not have transparent policies on such questions. Some Schools have been
uncertain in the present climate about the best way to manage centres, especially
questions such as returns on research grant overheads and indirects.
The absence of CHSS strategies and policies
CHSS has no clear set of strategies and policies on centres or institutes at any point in
their lifecycle. There exists a Check List for the creation of new Centres and the
approval of existing Centres (1998; rev. 2003), and from time to time proposals for new
Centres (especially ones engaging more than one School) are taken before College P&R
for approval with papers based on the criteria identified by the Check List. Some have
also been formally approved by the University. Many people are evidently unfamiliar
with the existence of the Check List or requirements, such as they exist, for approval.
Thus, many entities call themselves ‘centres’ with either just School approval, or no
formal approval at all. Furthermore, the Check List contains no statement of principles
determining what constitute the irreducible minimum features of a CHSS Centre, such
as a minimum core or scale of activities, the availability of resources to maintain those
activities, a regularly updated website and active communication policy to ensure
2
CHSS/P&R/50/8
relevance and visibility, and established procedures for governance and operation. The
Check List does not attempt to define ‘centres’ and ‘institutes’ and to distinguish them
from other perhaps less formal forms of academic collaboration such as clusters,
networks and groups. It is worth noting that in the other Colleges of this University,
centres and/or institutes often claim pride of place as the primary vehicles for the
delivery of some of the most prestigious and well funded research, and are clubs to
which entry is gained only on payment of a ‘fee’ by the putative member, in terms of
the holding a portfolio of grants as a principal investigator. What constitutes a centre or
institute is therefore carefully defined and centrally controlled.
Towards a new strategy for CHSS
While it is not suggested that CHSS should go as far as other Colleges in restricting the
possibility to establish centres and institutes in such a way, it would be useful to ensure
that the College has a much sharper and more focused approach to collaboration in the
future in order to ensure that as an academic community we receive the best possible
return on the investment that establishing such collective entities represents. This will
enable us to highlight when necessary the sites of genuinely world-leading and
distinctive activity within the College, responding to new international research agendas
and new initiatives, e.g. in relation to internationalisation, led by the University. To be
recognised fully within the College, therefore, centres and institutes must have an
outward facing as well as an inward facing dimension, and need to be linked more
specifically to the research and knowledge exchange strategies of Schools and – where
appropriate – discipline/subject areas, REF Units of Assessment or even the College
itself. We should expect centres/institutes to be an important part of REF narratives in
2013, especially where links are highlighted across Units of Assessment. Sustainability
and evolution should be core elements of the strategy.
Three underlying principles lie at the heart of the new strategy:

3
Where collaborative activity can best be fostered by creating some sort of formal
‘vehicle’, it is important to distinguish between a number of key types (while
accepting that the categories are not hermetically sealed). However, a broadly
common terminology along the following lines should be adopted across the
College:
o A group is normally the first basis for collaboration between
academics/students. It is usually quite informal and may evolve over
time (and with funding/scale) towards being a centre or network. Groups
may be housed within larger frameworks (e.g. institutes, as in SSPS).
Groups are usually virtual in character. Typical group activities include
collaborative readings of texts, and informal internal seminars/PhD
workshops.
o A network is a relatively loose collaboration between a range of
research activities, often including externally funded work. Most
networks are cross-school even cross-college. Not all networks explicitly
call themselves ‘networks’, e.g. they may just have a subject title.
Networks, although often quite large, will generally be virtual in
character. Often networks have few activities, as such, but they are useful
vehicles, especially when accompanied by an effective web presence, for
signalling a cluster of strength externally for the purposes of attracting
CHSS/P&R/50/8
external funding. With such funding, networks could evolve into centres
or, with increasing scale and activity, towards institutes.
o A centre is the focus of a relatively narrowly specified range of
intellectual activity; it is generally the operating framework for one or
more linked research projects. Centres are often externally funded,
whether by public or private donors. Typical centre activities are
academic events, such as conferences and lectures, as well as
collaborative work on research projects. Normally centres have a
physical presence.
o A (research) institute is in many respects a large network. It is the
framework for collaborative identity for academics involved in many
broadly related sub-projects some of which are typically externally
funded. Some institutes have taken on, or been vested with,
responsibility for delivery of teaching programmes. Networks are usually
cross disciplinary and they generally have a physical presence.
4

All entities which identity themselves as ‘centres’ or ‘institutes’ must have a
minimum core of features and activities including:
o Foundational documents which have been reviewed by an appropriate
body at the School and/or the College level (and/or externally in the case
of externally funded centres).
o An appropriate governance structure (director; steering committee;
management of resources; advisory board if required; arrangements for
membership; a constitution or similar foundational document which
states clearly the rationale).
o A system of periodic review of activities and rationales, with annual
reports and more extensive quinquennial review, normally by a single
school, but by multiple schools or the College (or a designated body) as
appropriate; this need not apply to centres with external funding which
are subject to external audits and reviews, although sometimes funders
will make it a condition of their continued commitment that there is an
effective internal review process. Review processes should focus inter
alia on two matters which are often neglected: the continued rationale
for the existence (in its current form) of the centre or institute (and
therefore the conditions under which sunsetting or change of
model/format for the activity would be appropriate) and the
communication strategy and especially the website of the centre or
institute. Periodic review will also be useful for many networks,
especially those which seek resources from the College or the Schools.
In general, one of the purposes of periodic review is to reveal the case for
reclassification and changes in structures. Reviews should also highlight
opportunities for centres and institutes to seek resources outwith the
University, and focus on sustainability issues.

All collaborative activities, including centres and institutes, but also other
groups/clusters/networks, however termed, which are externally facing must
have an appropriate and regularly updated website, which makes it clear that the
activity originates in the University of Edinburgh (indicating partnerships as
appropriate), and which links back to the University or the School website. If
there is no activity, then there should be no website. The College Research and
CHSS/P&R/50/8
KE website should reflect or highlight these external presences in an appropriate
way and suggestions will be fed to Edinburgh Global for improvements to their
web presence so far as affects centres in CHSS.
Other questions relating to the governance of centres and related activities are a matter
for Schools, especially the question of appropriate resources from School funds and
levels of internal/external autonomy.
How should this strategy be taken forward?








The College should mainstream strategy on centres and institutes within its own
Planning Guidance to Schools.
Schools must develop a strategy for ‘their’ centres, institutes and other vehicles
for collaboration, plus a means of communicating amongst each other about
centres and institutes which cross school boundaries avoiding the twin pitfalls of
benign neglect and over regulation.
After adoption of the College Strategy, there will need to be some post hoc
scrutiny of existing cases, including renaming and re-branding, possibly
including restructuring, including sunsetting. This will primarily led by Schools
and should be reported to College Research Committee.
The overall strategy on centres and institutes should be kept under regular
review by College P&R in order to guide the Schools, but the main role of ‘meta
oversight’ of School strategies should be delegated to College Research
Committee which should receive annual updates from Schools (e.g. School
Research Committees).
For large and complex centres and institutes requiring review, the Dean of
Research could be involved in review processes cutting across Schools.
A register of centres and institutes should be maintained and regularly updated
by the College Research Officer.
College and University web pages should be updated in an effective way to
reflect the significance and reach of CHSS centres and institutes, highlighting
the variety across the disciplines, but also focusing on the areas of true worldleading expertise.
The College Research Committee should discuss and approve an updated
version of the existing ‘Checklist for Centres’, incorporating missing elements
such as the requirement for a clear rationale for centres/institutes to be
established, and the structures for reporting, review and possible ‘sunsetting’.
Next steps



Consideration by College Research Committee: 29 September 2010
Consideration within Schools – e.g. in management groups/research committees:
October 2010
Consideration and proposed adoption by College Planning and Resources
Committee: 22 November 2010
Jo Shaw
Dean of Research, CHSS
September 2010
5