Research Centre Reviews (Full and Interim)
1.
Background
The Research Committee is responsible for undertaking formal reviews of all Research
Centres every five years, with an interim review in between. The Committee has reassessed
its role in reviewing Research Centres, particularly in the light of the White Paper ‘The
Future of Higher Education’ published in January 2003, which requires all funded research to
fully recover all costs wherever possible. The Committee has consequently revised the
review procedure to ensure it is more rigorous, transparent and accountable, with the process
linked to the life-cycle of Research Centres and the timing and review of their external
funding. This template sets out to explain the revised review procedure to Centre Directors.
2.
Nature of Research Centres
Research Centres at LSE are interdisciplinary and multi-departmental. Single department
Centres should rightly be programmes within departments. The parent department of a
Research Centre is deemed to be the department with the largest intellectual interest in the
work of the Centre. The Research Committee will determine Centres’ parent departments, in
consultation with the RAE Strategy Committee and those department with a direct interest in
the Centre.
3.
Review process
3.1
Interim reviews
Interim reviews are held every five years, in between full reviews, to ensure that
Centres are on track, and to highlight any issues which need to be addressed.
Directors of Centres to be reviewed will receive a letter from the Chair of Research
Committee advising them of the forthcoming interim review, its process and the
timescale. All Centres under review need to prepare a report addressing five key
issues:

Does the Research Centre have a clear research agenda that warrants the designation
of the title ‘Centre’?

Is the Research Centre interdisciplinary, involving sufficient academics across the
School, and if appropriate, academics from outside the School?

Is the Research Centre financially viable? Research Centre viability for interim
review should be the same as full review, i.e. after the first three years of operation
Centres need to achieve an annual average spend of £150k over three consecutive
years properly funded by external funding agencies.

Is the Centre disseminating its work effectively, e.g. promoting its work externally?

Is the Research Centre attracting high quality staff to its activities? Give details.
In addition to this, annual reports relating to the review period should be submitted.
All documents will be circulated to members of the Research Committee. If any cause
for concern is identified the Centre Director(s) may be invited to meet with the Chair
of Research Committee to discuss any issues raised in the report. The report is
discussed at a meeting of the Research Committee, with the Chair highlighting any
issues discussed with the Director (if appropriate). Centre Directors are subsequently
advised of the Committee’s decision and any issues raised which should be addressed
before the full review.
3.2
Full reviews
Full reviews are held every five years and as far as possible are timed to coincide with
the life cycle of a Centre’s main external funding (e.g. the five year ESRC review).
Full reviews are more rigorous than interim reviews and aim to establish whether a
Centre has the intellectual and financial means to merit its continued existence.
Directors of Centres to be reviewed will receive a letter from the Chair of Research
Committee advising them of the forthcoming full review, its process and the
timescale. Centre Directors and the convenor of their parent department(s) may be
asked to suggest an appropriate external assessor chosen from the departmental list of
external assessors where it is considered appropriate either by the Research
Committee Chair or members of the Committee. All Centres under review need to
prepare a report as outlined in (8) below, which is reviewed by the Chair of Research
Committee. Centre Directors meet with the Chair of Research Committee to discuss
any issues raised in the report. The report is discussed at a meeting of the Research
Committee, with the Chair highlighting any issues discussed with the Director.
Centre Directors are invited to attend the Research Committee meeting to make a
short presentation on the future directions of the Centre and to discuss any issues
raised by the Committee or by the external assessor. Centre Directors are
subsequently advised of the Committee’s decision and any issues raised which should
be addressed in the timescale indicated.
4.
ESRC Centres
Research Committee reviews are timed to coincide with ESRC five yearly reviews. ESRC
Research Centres are not asked to nominate an external assessor, as the Centre will already
have been assessed externally by the ESRC. Otherwise the review process remains as
outlined in (3) above.
5.
Financial viability
A joint APRC Research Committee working group has agreed that after the first three years
of operation Centres need to achieve an annual average spend of £150k over three
consecutive years properly funded by external funding agencies to retain autonomy; Centres
not generating £150k annual spend for 2 consecutive years would be placed under the aegis
of their parent departments. Centres where autonomy had been withdrawn would not be
entitled to retain their ‘Centre’ title and any discretionary funds would be ring-fenced within
the parent department’s budget (see (2) for explanation of parent department). There may be
certain circumstances where Research Committee can use its discretion to allow a centre
which has failed its review to retain the word ‘centre’ in its title.
6.
Research Centre life span
The joint APRC Research Committee working group has also agreed that Centres be wound
up after 10 years unless a fresh intellectual case is made for continuation, and that the
2
continued existence of a Centre be reviewed after the departure of a founding Director.
Centre Directors are therefore asked to consider whether the Centre has sufficient intellectual
vigour to sustain it beyond this 10 year period. When deciding whether to renew the Centre
beyond Year 10, the Research Committee will use the following criteria:
 the extent to which the Centre met its agreed objectives
 the contribution of the Centre to its research field in terms of capacity-building
and methodological and theoretical development
 the quality and quantity of the Centre's work in terms of its outputs
 the impact of the Centre's work on its user communities
 the value added by concentrating resources in the Centre
 the potential value of further investment in the research area
 how the work of the Centre fits with the School’s overall research strategy.
7.
Centre Directors’ Term
The Research Committee requires all non-ESRC Centres to have a written procedure for
replacing their Director after a certain period of time. The procedures should specify the
length of time a Director should serve before their appointment is reviewed; it is suggested
that five years would be an appropriate initial period. Where Centres do not have an existing
procedure, they should adopt the procedure devised by the Research Committee, details of
which are available from RPDD.
8.
Full review criteria
The Research Committee assesses a Centre’s past performance, current intellectual and
financial shape, and future plans for achieving its intellectual agenda, financial stability and
contribution to the School community and beyond. The Research Committee criteria for a
successful review include the Centre's financial health, its publications record, an analysis of
achievements and progress made on the objectives outlined when the Centre was established
and a detailed set of objectives for the forthcoming five-year period.
To assist with the review, Centre Directors are asked to provide a report to the Committee
which specifically addresses the following criteria:
(i)
The Centre’s intellectual agenda
 What was the original mission when the Centre was first created?
 What are the current intellectual questions being addressed by the Centre?
 How are the research objectives being progressed?
 What is the Centre achieving above and beyond work going on in departments?
(ii)
Achievements over the past five years
 Please include details of the Centre’s publications, events and any other outputs
over the last five years.
(iii)
Future directions for the Centre
 This should set out a detailed list of objectives for the forthcoming five year
period, including the intellectual case for the Centre’s continuation beyond its
initial 10 year period where appropriate (see (6) above).
(iv)
An assessment of the Centre’s financial viability
3

Please include your annual accounts with the report and outline what plans the
Centre has for generation of future funding. A template for reporting Centres’
annual accounts is available from RPDD.
(v)
RAE contribution
 Which Centre staff were submitted to RAE2008 and to which units of assessment?
(vi)
Research staff
 A forecast of the numbers of researchers that the Centre expects to host in the
forthcoming five years. This will help guide the School when assessing future
space requirements.
Revised October 2007
4