Senate

SEN99-P78

At the meeting held on 11^th June 1999, the committee received a brief report on the discussions which had taken place at Chairman's Advisory Group in relation to the research section of the Strategic Plan. Members were informed that, despite the reservations of the Faculties, Chairman's Advisory Group had recommended that the optimistic targets for research income be retained. The draft plan and comments from Chairman's Advisory Group would be discussed at Senate on 23 June 1999.

The PVC(R) had been asked to revise the Research Section of the plan by 25 June 1999. It was agreed that a meeting with AD(R)s should be held on 24 June 1999 to discuss the revised section on research. The Secretary was asked to circulate relevant notes from Chairman's Advisory Group.

At the meeting held on 4^th November 1999, the research section of the Strategic Plan was reviewed. The AD(R) for the Faculty of Engineering commented upon various numeric discrepancies that he had apparently identified between targets for research students and RA’s in the Strategic Plan as compared with the statistical digest as at December 1998. Apparently there appears to have been a transfer of RA’s who are registered as research students between one column and another and Roy Frost in the Planning Office had been asked to explore these discrepancies.

Annual targets in relation to the overall plan were raised. All AD(R)’s will discuss further at Directorate meetings in order to ensure that their targets when amalgamated are consistent with the overall figures and targets in the Strategic Plan. This will be progressed further via the Research Team.

It was also suggested that Steve Hughes provides historic information over the last 3 years showing the figures for actual income as well as for the value of grants and contracts awarded in order to identify correlations between the two sets of data.

At the meeting of 11^th June 1999, the Committee reviewed progress on the Operational Plan for 1998/99 and agreed a statement of outcomes as at June 1999.

At the meeting held on 4^th November 1999, the PVC(R) went through the various headings of the Operational Plan with the AD(R)’s and specific comments were made on the following areas:

Particular concern was expressed regarding the progression of PhD students and DJH explained that he wished to increase the Science Faculty completion rate from 65% through initiatives being put in place within the Faculty, and he will report further in due course. It was confirmed that the Research Committee would continue to receive information throughout the year in this important area.

The PVC(R) then also passed on his congratulations regarding the value of the new grants and contracts awarded during the 1998/99 financial year, and noted that it was particularly pleasing to see the reversal in the decline in the Science Faculty.

Research organisation – it was noted that the Engineering Faculty is currently reorganising into 12 research groups (possibly 10 in the future), and it was suggested that the other Faculties should explore the possibilities of emulating the Engineering Faculty model. The AD(R)’s of both SSH and Science explained that they felt it would be more difficult to achieve given the great diversity of research interests within their Faculties. The AD(R) for the Faculty of SSH emphasised this point of view because of the addition of LUSAD to the Faculty. However, the Engineering Faculty had equally diverse interests and had managed to incorporate those into its model. The AD(R) for the Faculty of Engineering went on to explain that HoD’s now accept the fact that they are contributing to a research school in a variety of ways. He did not see why the other two Faculties could not pursue the same line of attack.

This then prompted discussion about cross faculty groupings and JVD suggested that the concepts of possibly introducing a single Research School to the University should also be considered, and indeed that there were other potential models that could be drawn up. PJT for example suggested a fourth "Research Faculty". It was agreed that the AD(R)’s for SSH and Science would raise these issues at their next Directorate meetings, and it was also further agreed that the AD(R) for the Faculty of Engineering would provide them with some written information regarding the operational arrangements for the Research School within the Engineering Faculty for their perusal.

Research infrastructure – It was explained that the development of a database of research interests and information had been slow in development, and the momentum concerned with the project appeared to have been lost over the summer when the efforts of computer services had been redirected towards the problems with the implementation of the new Finance System. The completion of such a Research Interests Database was crucial towards the new Research Support Office’s ability to provide better disseminated and targeted research funding opportunity information, and that this was high on the Office’s aims. Further discussion will take place at the next appropriate Research Team meeting concerning the next steps.

At the meeting held on 11^th June 1999, the Committee agreed that the 1999/00 Operational Plan should be considered at the meeting of AD(R)s on 24 June 1999. The Pro Vice Chancellor (Research) agreed to circulate a draft in advance.

At the meeting held on 4^th November 1999, the performance measures and actions were noted and discussed. It was commented that the reference to the establishment of the Research Office should in fact read Research Support Office to reflect actuality. Discussion ensued about increasing the number of full-time research students from 60 to 455. It was generally felt that the problem was one of funding and that there was little likelihood of huge growth in the UK market and as a consequence future growth is most likely to come from overseas markets.

With this in mind the AD(R) of Science explained that they are exploring the possibilities of recruiting from Southern China involving a direct marketing campaign in Chinese using contacts that the Faculty has fostered. The AD(R) for Engineering made reference to the BG Technology HUB, which has been used to recruit students on a partnership basis from South East Asia.

It was suggested that the role of the External Relations Office in marketing the University in this respect would be explored further.

Discussion then ensued concerning the 10 Fast Track Chairs. It was anticipated that these will all be filled as the outstanding ones are at the shortlisting stage.

On the 11^th June, the Committee considered a draft memo, for circulation to Heads of Departments, which outlined the way in which the 2001 RAE would be managed. Minor amendments to the memo were agreed and the Chair undertook to circulate it to Heads of Departments.

On the 11^th June, the committee considered the first draft of the Loughborough response to the ESRC Training Board Consultation document. This included two suggestions for new ESRC policies of partnership. The first involved the creation of a number of two year studentships open to full-time students after one year of study or part-time students after two years. The Committee felt that this might be difficult to implement. The lack of guaranteed funding could influence the expectation of study in the first year. The proposal could also be contrary to the policies of the other Research Councils.

The second proposal related to the introduction of an academic apprenticeship scheme. This would be circulated to Directorates for discussion in the Autumn but the Committee agreed that it could be presented to ESRC as a preliminary proposal from the Faculty. Discussions at University level could continue in parallel. It was agreed that the proposals should be forwarded to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) for comment before submission to ESRC.

On the 4^th November, it was noted that the paper from the AD(R) for SSH had not been enthusiastically received by the Faculties of Science and Engineering. The AD(R) for the Faculty of SSH reported that feedback on a draft proposal was awaited from the ESRC Training Board. Any further progression of this matter will initially be taken forward by the Faculty of SSH.

On 4^th November, it was reported that the 2 bids from the Faculty of Science (Physics and Chemistry) had not been successful. The AD(R) for the Faculty of Science expressed surprise that the Chemistry bid had failed, but he had been less confident with the outcome of the Physics bid.

The PVC(R) then went on to explain that outlined proposals are also now being requested for Masters level training packages (MTP’s) by the EPSRC in accordance with their circular letter of the 1^st November 1999. There is a deadline of the 20^th January 2000 and copies of the circular were distributed to the AD(R)’s for their consideration. The emphasis for the MTP’s was different from that of M.Res.

On 4^th November, the Terms of Reference/Committee membership were reviewed and discussed by the Committee, and a revised draft copy prepared for circulation amongst the Committee prior to submission to Senate. It was reported that the Chairman of Council was considering a nomination for membership.

On the 4^th November, the PVC(R) set the historical background to this issue explaining that previous documentation had been examined by the PVC(T) and the Research Committee and that the University had duly made a response. He then went onto explain that more input was now required in accordance with the letter of the 18^th October received from the Quality Assurance Agency which also gave the opportunity for institutions to attend discussion meetings (the nearest being the University of Leicester on 18th November 1999, to be attended by Robert Bowyer). Discussion ensued amongst the AD(R)’s and the PVC(R) and it was unanimously decided that this was an issue for the PDQ Committee.

On 4^th November, the Research Support Manager’s memorandum was noted and it was decided to await receipt of the PMG Minutes before further action is taken.

On 4^th November, the information for the last 3 financial years provided by Steve Hughes was noted and discussed. Departments who had performed poorly were identified and the views of the AD(R)’s sought accordingly. Overall, the delivery of an increase in grants and contacts must continue and it was suggested that the number of applications in the year running up to the RAE must increase although there will be increased competition.

Reference was also made to the cumulative position of the value of grants and contracts received to the 1^st September 1999 as compared with previous years. Although growth has not been as high as in previous years it was expected that some further large contracts and grants are currently being processed which will appear in the October data which will have the effect of adding approximately £2m to the total. This will place us in a comparable position with previous years.

On the 4^th November, the PVC(R) explained that there was a problem in that the documentation received by the University had not stipulated a response by 12^th November 1999, and that this had only been ascertained indirectly, as confirmed by the Research Support Manager. Further discussions on the University’s response were planned for the next Research Team meeting to be held on 8^th November 1999. It was noted that the same item was on the EMG agenda on the same day.

The PVC(R) explained that a further letter dated 29^th October 1999 from David Pilsbury at HEFCE had been given to him yesterday from the V-C’s office requesting further information. He explained that this would be dealt with by the PVC(R), the Bursar, the PVC(T) and the SPVC.

On the 4^th November, Dr Brigette Vale was welcomed to the group to provide her input on the above-mentioned topic following original discussions that had taken place at the previous Research Team meeting. She explained that it was her objective to formulate a policy that could be applied to all students who are remotely based both in the UK and abroad. As this would be a new policy it will need the further agreement of Senate in order that this policy may then be enforced.

The main issues that she had highlighted in her discussion paper were then systematically discussed:

External Supervisor – It was agreed that in normal cases an External Supervisor should be appointed and that the nomination should also include the submission of a CV.

Research facilities – It was also agreed that the quality of research facilities where research takes place outside the University should also be vetted and that this aspect should form part of the agreement of a programme proposal which is also linked to the ability of the student to carry out the research.

Attendance – Debate ensued about the means of monitoring a student’s work and progress, and whether a minimum attendance at Loughborough should be prescribed. At the moment the regulations are very open and therefore there is a quality issue at stake here.

Finally, it was agreed that there should be a minimal physical presence here on an annual basis although it was also agreed that there should be flexibility within the programme that is agreed with the student at the outset of the research activity. Such a programme would also make provision for the submission of regular reports in order that progress could be monitored.

On the 4^th November, BPV gave the first of a series of reports regarding research students intake and explained that the data submitted represented an early position and if extrapolated would provide a distorted picture. She explained that the bulk of the registrations take place between now and the end of the year and felt that intake will increase significantly. Overall she felt that the data were looking fairly positive compared with previous years.

The PVC(R) noted that the recruitment of 60 full-time research students (both home and overseas) as specified in the Operational Plan is a very ambitious target and BPV agreed with this. BPV then asked whether all new studentship funding as allocated to the Faculties has been committed. Apparently, the Science Faculty has some funding left to support approximately 20 half-funded ones, whilst the Engineering Faculty has 4 or 5 studentships left which will be used up this year. The AD(R) for the Faculty of SSH explained that all their studentships have been allocated. A discussion then ensued regarding in what strategic direction studentship monies have been allocated. Although it had been intended to distribute these in line with research strategy, at the end of the day it was the departments which had been able to provide the matching funds which had benefited from the studentships (the Business School being the main example). Concern was expressed that the drivers here appear to be wrong and go against RAE strategy. Studentships in the Science Faculty have been broadly distributed. From the Engineering Faculty’s point of view the number of home students has gone down substantially and they are increasingly having to look overseas for recruitment.

Overall, BPV explained that the number of 125 research students that were recruited last year is likely to be exceeded in the forthcoming year, but overall numbers will be affected by the collapse in the part-time market. Consequently she is checking all potential registrations, e.g. Teaching Company Scheme RA’s, etc.

Author – Peter A. Townsend

Date - November 1999

Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved.