Tagged / ref 2021

Enhance your Impact in Preparation for the REF

The Research and Knowledge Exchange Office (RKEO) through the Research & Knowledge Exchange Development Framework (RKEDF) has a number of workshops in the coming months to assist you in developing and enhancing the impact that you can make with your research, with particular reference to the REF.

Please follow the links above to find out more and to book. You will then receive a meeting request giving the room location. Many of these events have input from external presenters; please ensure that you are in the room and ready to commence at the given start time.

If you would like to discuss impact outside these workshops, please contact the RKEO Knowledge and Impact Team.

Enhance your Impact in Preparation for the REF

The Research and Knowledge Exchange Office (RKEO) through the Research & Knowledge Exchange Development Framework (RKEDF) has a number of workshops in the coming months to assist you in developing and enhancing the impact that you can make with your research, with particular reference to the REF.

Please follow the links above to find out more and to book. You will then receive a meeting request giving the room location. Many of these events have input from external presenters; please ensure that you are in the room and ready to commence at the given start time.

If you would like to discuss impact outside these workshops, please contact the RKEO Knowledge and Impact Team.

Enhance your Impact in Preparation for the REF

The Research and Knowledge Exchange Office (RKEO) through the Research & Knowledge Exchange Development Framework (RKEDF) has a number of workshops in the coming months to assist you in developing and enhancing the impact that you can make with your research, with particular reference to the REF.

Please follow the links above to find out more and to book. You will then receive a meeting request giving the room location. Many of these events have input from external presenters; please ensure that you are in the room and ready to commence at the given start time.

If you would like to discuss impact outside these workshops, please contact the RKEO Knowledge and Impact Team.

Deadline extended – call for EoIs: Leaders for UOA 2 and UOA 3 to drive REF 2021 preparations

The deadline for expressions of interest for Leaders for UOAs 2 and 3 has been extended to Monday 16 April at 5pm. EoIs should be sent by email to Julie Northam (Head of RKEO).

BU is preparing submissions for units of assessment (UOAs) for REF 2021. Preparation for each UOA is led by a UOA Leader who is supported by an Impact Champion and an Output Champion. From March 2018, UOA Leaders are recruited via an open and transparent process. All academic staff have the opportunity to put themselves forward for UOA Leader roles. The roles are until December 2020.

We are currently seeking expressions of interest (EoIs) from academic staff interested in leading preparations for two UOAs:

  • Public health, health services and primary care
  • Allied health professions, dentistry, nursing and pharmacy

UOA Leaders serve a term up to December 2020, although they can choose to step down during this time. The UOA Leader undertakes a vital role in driving and delivering BU’s REF submission, influencing the University’s preparations, shaping optimal submissions for each UOA and ultimately having a significant effect on BU’s REF 2021 results.

Key responsibilities of the UOA Leader role include:

  • Providing leadership, advice and support on all issues relating to research planning, impact, performance metrics and published guidance relating to the UOA
  • Considering the widest available staff pool for the UOA and present these options to the REF Committee (being mindful of where this potentially impacts upon other UOAs)
  • Having an institutional outlook for the REF, i.e. aiming to optimise BU’s overall REF performance
  • Optimising the UOA submission and that of related UOAs by working to mitigate weaknesses and to highlight strengths across all aspects of the submission
  • Ensuring that outputs undergo rigorous review, internally and externally in order to assess quality prior to inclusion for REF
  • Working with Impact champions and the Impact Working Group to understand the interrelationship of case study quality, selection, placement and staff numbers for the UOA
  • Leading on REF communications within departments represented in the UOA and be the key point of contact and advice with regard to the UOA for Heads of research entities, DDRPPs and Executive Deans
  • Working closely with RKEO who are managing the central REF preparation and submission process
  • Attend the REF Committee meetings

Being a UOA Leader is a big commitment and is recognised accordingly. UOA Leaders are given time to attend meetings and take responsibility for tasks. As such potential applicants should discuss their workload balance with their Head of Department before applying.

 

Application process:

To apply for either role, please submit a short statement (suggested length 300 words) stating which role you are interested in and explaining your interest in the role and what you could bring to it. This should be sent by email to Julie Northam by 5pm on Monday 16 April 2018.

The EoIs will be reviewed by a gender balanced panel comprising a DDRPP and a member of the professoriate. Applicants successful at this stage will be invited to an interview with the same panel.

The selection criteria used at EoI and interview stage are outlined below. Each criterion carries a total possible score of 5. The role will be offered to the highest scoring applicant. A member of the panel will provide feedback to all applicants.

  • Commitment, motivation and enthusiasm (scored out of 5): Being a UOA Leader is a big commitment. UOA Leaders need to be willing and able to make this commitment. They need to be enthusiastic about the REF and boosting research performance.
  • Skills and knowledge (scored out of 5): UOA Leaders should bring with them skills and knowledge to optimise BU’s REF preparations and submission (e.g. knowledge of the REF process, expertise in research metrics, leadership experience, knowledge about impact, experience of writing and delivering research strategies, etc).
  • Plans for preparing the UOA submission and awareness of the potential challenges and opportunities UOA Leaders are responsible for driving and delivering the UOA’s submission to REF 2021 whilst also maintaining an institutional outlook to optimise BU’s overall REF performance. They should have ideas for how they will do this and the potential challenges and opportunities of this, specific to the UOA.

 

Questions:

Questions regarding the process should be directed to Julie Northam (Head of RKEO).

UOA-specific questions should be directed to Prof Vanora Hundley (Deputy Dean for Research in HSS) or to Prof Tiantian Zhang (Deputy Dean for Research in FST)

Deadline today – call for EoIs: Leaders for UOA 2 and UOA 3 to drive REF 2021 preparations

Today (12 April) at 5pm is the deadline for EoIs for Leaders for UOAs 2 and 3. EoIs should be sent by email to Julie Northam (Head of RKEO).

BU is preparing submissions for units of assessment (UOAs) for REF 2021. Preparation for each UOA is led by a UOA Leader who is supported by an Impact Champion and an Output Champion. From March 2018, UOA Leaders are recruited via an open and transparent process. All academic staff have the opportunity to put themselves forward for UOA Leader roles. The roles are until December 2020.

We are currently seeking expressions of interest (EoIs) from academic staff interested in leading preparations for two UOAs:

  • Public health, health services and primary care
  • Allied health professions, dentistry, nursing and pharmacy

UOA Leaders serve a term up to December 2020, although they can choose to step down during this time. The UOA Leader undertakes a vital role in driving and delivering BU’s REF submission, influencing the University’s preparations, shaping optimal submissions for each UOA and ultimately having a significant effect on BU’s REF 2021 results.

Key responsibilities of the UOA Leader role include:

  • Providing leadership, advice and support on all issues relating to research planning, impact, performance metrics and published guidance relating to the UOA
  • Considering the widest available staff pool for the UOA and present these options to the REF Committee (being mindful of where this potentially impacts upon other UOAs)
  • Having an institutional outlook for the REF, i.e. aiming to optimise BU’s overall REF performance
  • Optimising the UOA submission and that of related UOAs by working to mitigate weaknesses and to highlight strengths across all aspects of the submission
  • Ensuring that outputs undergo rigorous review, internally and externally in order to assess quality prior to inclusion for REF
  • Working with Impact champions and the Impact Working Group to understand the interrelationship of case study quality, selection, placement and staff numbers for the UOA
  • Leading on REF communications within departments represented in the UOA and be the key point of contact and advice with regard to the UOA for Heads of research entities, DDRPPs and Executive Deans
  • Working closely with RKEO who are managing the central REF preparation and submission process
  • Attend the REF Committee meetings

Being a UOA Leader is a big commitment and is recognised accordingly. UOA Leaders are given time to attend meetings and take responsibility for tasks. As such potential applicants should discuss their workload balance with their Head of Department before applying.

 

Application process:

To apply for either role, please submit a short statement (suggested length 300 words) stating which role you are interested in and explaining your interest in the role and what you could bring to it. This should be sent by email to Julie Northam by 5pm on Thursday 12 April 2018.

The EoIs will be reviewed by a gender balanced panel comprising a DDRPP and a member of the professoriate. Applicants successful at this stage will be invited to an interview with the same panel.

The selection criteria used at EoI and interview stage are outlined below. Each criterion carries a total possible score of 5. The role will be offered to the highest scoring applicant. A member of the panel will provide feedback to all applicants.

  • Commitment, motivation and enthusiasm (scored out of 5): Being a UOA Leader is a big commitment. UOA Leaders need to be willing and able to make this commitment. They need to be enthusiastic about the REF and boosting research performance.
  • Skills and knowledge (scored out of 5): UOA Leaders should bring with them skills and knowledge to optimise BU’s REF preparations and submission (e.g. knowledge of the REF process, expertise in research metrics, leadership experience, knowledge about impact, experience of writing and delivering research strategies, etc).
  • Plans for preparing the UOA submission and awareness of the potential challenges and opportunities UOA Leaders are responsible for driving and delivering the UOA’s submission to REF 2021 whilst also maintaining an institutional outlook to optimise BU’s overall REF performance. They should have ideas for how they will do this and the potential challenges and opportunities of this, specific to the UOA.

 

Questions:

Questions regarding the process should be directed to Julie Northam (Head of RKEO).

UOA-specific questions should be directed to Prof Vanora Hundley (Deputy Dean for Research in HSS) or to Prof Tiantian Zhang (Deputy Dean for Research in FST)

Enhance your Impact in Preparation for the REF

The Research and Knowledge Exchange Office (RKEO) through the Research & Knowledge Exchange Development Framework (RKEDF) have a number of workshops in the coming months to assist you in developing and enhancing the impact that you can make with your research, with particular reference to the REF.

Please follow the links above to find out more and to book. You will then receive a meeting request giving the room location. Many of these events have input from external presenters; please ensure that you are in the room and ready to commence at the given start time.

If you would like to discuss impact outside these workshops, please contact the RKEO Knowledge and Impact Team.

Call for EoIs: Unit of Assessment (UOA) Leaders for UOA 2 and UOA 3 to drive REF 2021 preparations

BU is preparing submissions for units of assessment (UOAs) for REF 2021. Preparation for each UOA is led by a UOA Leader who is supported by an Impact Champion and an Output Champion. From March 2018, UOA Leaders are recruited via an open and transparent process. All academic staff have the opportunity to put themselves forward for UOA Leader roles. The roles are until December 2020.

We are currently seeking expressions of interest (EoIs) from academic staff interested in leading preparations for two UOAs:

  • Public health, health services and primary care
  • Allied health professions, dentistry, nursing and pharmacy

UOA Leaders serve a term up to December 2020, although they can choose to step down during this time. The UOA Leader undertakes a vital role in driving and delivering BU’s REF submission, influencing the University’s preparations, shaping optimal submissions for each UOA and ultimately having a significant effect on BU’s REF 2021 results.

Key responsibilities of the UOA Leader role include:

  • Providing leadership, advice and support on all issues relating to research planning, impact, performance metrics and published guidance relating to the UOA
  • Considering the widest available staff pool for the UOA and present these options to the REF Committee (being mindful of where this potentially impacts upon other UOAs)
  • Having an institutional outlook for the REF, i.e. aiming to optimise BU’s overall REF performance
  • Optimising the UOA submission and that of related UOAs by working to mitigate weaknesses and to highlight strengths across all aspects of the submission
  • Ensuring that outputs undergo rigorous review, internally and externally in order to assess quality prior to inclusion for REF
  • Working with Impact champions and the Impact Working Group to understand the interrelationship of case study quality, selection, placement and staff numbers for the UOA
  • Leading on REF communications within departments represented in the UOA and be the key point of contact and advice with regard to the UOA for Heads of research entities, DDRPPs and Executive Deans
  • Working closely with RKEO who are managing the central REF preparation and submission process
  • Attend the REF Committee meetings

Being a UOA Leader is a big commitment and is recognised accordingly. UOA Leaders are given time to attend meetings and take responsibility for tasks. As such potential applicants should discuss their workload balance with their Head of Department before applying.

 

Application process:

To apply for either role, please submit a short statement (suggested length 300 words) stating which role you are interested in and explaining your interest in the role and what you could bring to it. This should be sent by email to Julie Northam by 5pm on Thursday 12 April 2018.

The EoIs will be reviewed by a gender balanced panel comprising a DDRPP and a member of the professoriate. Applicants successful at this stage will be invited to an interview with the same panel.

The selection criteria used at EoI and interview stage are outlined below. Each criterion carries a total possible score of 5. The role will be offered to the highest scoring applicant. A member of the panel will provide feedback to all applicants.

  • Commitment, motivation and enthusiasm (scored out of 5): Being a UOA Leader is a big commitment. UOA Leaders need to be willing and able to make this commitment. They need to be enthusiastic about the REF and boosting research performance.
  • Skills and knowledge (scored out of 5): UOA Leaders should bring with them skills and knowledge to optimise BU’s REF preparations and submission (e.g. knowledge of the REF process, expertise in research metrics, leadership experience, knowledge about impact, experience of writing and delivering research strategies, etc).
  • Plans for preparing the UOA submission and awareness of the potential challenges and opportunities UOA Leaders are responsible for driving and delivering the UOA’s submission to REF 2021 whilst also maintaining an institutional outlook to optimise BU’s overall REF performance. They should have ideas for how they will do this and the potential challenges and opportunities of this, specific to the UOA.

 

Questions:

Questions regarding the process should be directed to Julie Northam (Head of RKEO).

UOA-specific questions should be directed to Prof Vanora Hundley (Deputy Dean for Research in HSS) or to Prof Tiantian Zhang (Deputy Dean for Research in FST)

Enhance your Impact in Preparation for the REF

The Research and Knowledge Exchange Office (RKEO) through the Research & Knowledge Exchange Development Framework (RKEDF) have a number of workshops in the coming months to assist you in developing and enhancing the impact that you can make with your research, with particular reference to the REF.

Please follow the links above to find out more and to book. You will then receive a meeting request giving the room location. Many of these events have input from external presenters; please ensure that you are in the room and ready to commence at the given start time.

If you would like to discuss impact outside these workshops, please contact the RKEO Knowledge and Impact Team.

Enhance your Impact in Preparation for the REF

The Research and Knowledge Exchange Office (RKEO) through the Research & Knowledge Exchange Development Framework (RKEDF) has a number of workshops in the coming months to assist you in developing and enhancing the impact that you can make with your research, with particular reference to the REF.

Please follow the links above to find out more and to book. You will then receive a meeting request giving the room location. Many of these events have input from external presenters; please ensure that you are in the room and ready to commence at the given start time.

If you would like to discuss impact outside these workshops, please contact the RKEO Knowledge and Impact Team.

Bibliometrics workshops – 6th of March

Understanding bibliometrics and the impact of your publications is fundamental for the  next REF.

The library academic liaison team is delivering two workshops on the 6th of March at Talbot Campus.

The Introduction to Bibliometrics session explains how to find journal- and article- metrics, Altmetrics and using BRIAN for metrics.

The Advanced Bibibliometrics session goes into more detail and talks about researchers’ ID and calculating your citations using H-Index and Google Scholar.

We look forward to seeing you at this workshop.

Jose

Faculty Librarian (HSS)

 

REF 2021 workshops – what makes a 2*, 3* or 4* output?

 

We have a series of externally-facilitated REF outputs workshops scheduled to take place in early 2018 as part of the RKE Development Framework. Each session is led by REF 2014 sub-panel member who will explain how the panel interpreted and applied the REF 2014 guidance when assessing the quality of outputs. The workshops are open to all academic staff to attend.

The expected learning outcomes from the workshops are for attendees to:

  • Gain insight into how the REF panels applied the REF criteria when considering the significance, rigour and originality of outputs;
  • Understand the differences between outputs scored 4*, 3*, 2*, 1* and Unclassified;
  • Gain insight into what is meant by ‘world leading’ and ‘internationally excellent’;
  • Understand how scores borderline cases were agreed and what the tipping points were to either break the ceiling into the higher star level or to hold an output back a star level;
  • Understand how panels used other information such as metrics, markers of journal quality or prior knowledge in output assessment;
  • Gain insight into how future outputs could be strengthened for REF20

Workshops scheduled so far are:

  • UOA 2/3 – Prof Dame Jill Macleod Clark – 15 March 2018
  • UOA 11 – Prof Iain Stewart – 29 January 2018
  • UoA 14 – Prof Jon Sadler – 2 February 2018
  • UOA 15 – Prof Graeme Barker – 7 February 2018
  • UOA 17 – Prof Terry Williams – 17 January 2018
  • UOA 18 – TBC
  • UOA 23 – Prof Jane Seale – 26 January 2018
  • UOA 24 (Sport & Exercise Science) – Professor John Horne –date TBC
  • UoA 24 (Leisure and Tourism) – Prof Gareth Shaw – date TBC
  • UOA 11/32 (Computer Animation) – Prof Anthony Steed – 31 January 2018
  • UOA 32/34 (Practice-based) – Prof Stephen Partridge – date TBC
  • UOA 34 – Prof Peter Lunt – date TBC

Please see the full range of REF-related workshops on the staff intranet.

HE policy update for the w/e 8th December 2017

Fees and funding – the latest developments

The fees and funding discussions continue with some interesting developments this week.

Firstly, there was a written response by the Minister -responding to the Resolution of the House on 13th September 2017 on tuition fees (the non-binding one that was essentially passed unanimously because no Conservative MPs attended). The statement included a few important points and some hints:

  • Maximum grants and loans for living and other costs will be increased by forecast inflation (3.2%) in 2018/19.
  • For the first time, students starting part-time degree level courses from 1 August 2018 onwards will qualify for loans for living costs.
  • I expect to lay regulations implementing changes to student finance for undergraduates and postgraduates for 2018/19 early in 2018. These regulations will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.
  • The Department of Health will be making a separate announcement on changes to student finance for postgraduate healthcare students and dental hygiene and dental therapy students in 2018/19.

(more…)

REF 2021 workshops – what makes a 2*, 3* or 4* output?

We have a series of externally-facilitated REF outputs workshops scheduled to take place in early 2018 as part of the RKE Development Framework. Each session is led by REF 2014 sub-panel member who will explain how the panel interpreted and applied the REF 2014 guidance when assessing the quality of outputs. The workshops are open to all academic staff to attend.

The expected learning outcomes from the workshops are for attendees to:

  • Gain insight into how the REF panels applied the REF criteria when considering the significance, rigour and originality of outputs;
  • Understand the differences between outputs scored 4*, 3*, 2*, 1* and Unclassified;
  • Gain insight into what is meant by ‘world leading’ and ‘internationally excellent’;
  • Understand how scores borderline cases were agreed and what the tipping points were to either break the ceiling into the higher star level or to hold an output back a star level;
  • Understand how panels used other information such as metrics, markers of journal quality or prior knowledge in output assessment;
  • Gain insight into how future outputs could be strengthened for REF2021.

 

Workshops scheduled so far are:

  • UOA 2/3 – Prof Dame Jill Macleod Clark – 15 March 2018
  • UOA 4 – Prof Marion Hetherington – 10 January 2018
  • UOA 11 – Prof Iain Stewart – 29 January 2018
  • UOA 12 – Prof Chris Chatwin – 8 January 2018
  • UOA 14 – Prof Jon Sadler – 11 January 2018
  • UOA 15 – Prof Graeme Barker – 7 February 2018
  • UOA 17 – Prof Terry Williams – 17 January 2018
  • UOA 18 – tbc
  • UOA 20/21 – Prof Imogen Taylor – 15 January 2018
  • UOA 23 – Prof Jane Seale – 26 January 2018
  • UOA 24 – tbc
  • UOA 27 – Prof Pat Waugh – 16 January 2018
  • UOA 11/32 (computer animation) – Prof Anthony Steed – 31 January 2018
  • UOA 32/34 (practice-based) – Prof Stephen Partridge – date tbc
  • UOA 36 – Prof Peter Lunt – date tbc

Bookings for these can be made via the Staff Intranet: https://staffintranet.bournemouth.ac.uk/workingatbu/staffdevelopmentandengagement/fusiondevelopment/fusionprogrammesandevents/rkedevelopmentframework/researchexcellenceframework/

REF 2021 – final decisions published

HEFCE kept their word and published the final decisions on REF 2021 in the autumn. Having issued the initial decisions on the Research Excellence Framework 2021 in September, the final decisions were published this week. HEFCE released its further decisions on staff and outputs on 21 November 2017.  These decisions have been informed by responses to key questions relating to staff and outputs and a survey of staff in scope for submission. This blog post provides a summary of the key decisions.

 

Submitting staff:

Previous REF/RAE exercises asked institutions to select staff for submission. The Stern Review in 2016 recognised how divisive this practice was and instead recommended that all research-active staff be returned to the next REF. HEFCE are implementing this recommendation by expecting all staff with a ‘significant responsibility for research’ to be submitted, provided they are ‘independent researchers’. What do these terms mean in practice? The HEFCE definition is:

“those for whom explicit time and resources are made available to engage actively in independent research, and that is an expectation of their job role. Research is defined as a process of investigation leading to new insights, effectively shared. Staff engaged exclusively in scholarship would not be considered to have a significant responsibility for research.”

Working with the REF 2021 main panels, HEFCE will provide further guidance on identifying staff with significant responsibility. This will be published in the guidance on submissions and panel criteria. This guidance will not prescribe a fixed set of criteria that all staff would be required to meet, but will set out a ‘menu’ of what HEFCE would consider may be appropriate indicators of significant responsibility.

 

Recognising that there are staff who have more significant responsibility for other activities, HEFCE will implement an approach whereby institutions, working with their staff and with guidelines, identify who is in scope for submission among staff meeting core eligibility criteria. HEFCE has defined the core eligibility criteria as:

Category A eligible’

  • academic staff with a contract of employment of ≥0.2 FTE
  • on the payroll of the submitting institution on the census date (31 July 2020)
  • whose primary employment function is to undertake either ‘research only’ (independent researchers only) or ‘teaching and research’
  • have a substantive connection with the submitting institution (i.e. BU)
  • for staff on ‘research only’ contracts, the eligible pool should only include those who are independent researchers, not research assistants

‘Category A submitted’ describes the staff from the ‘Category A eligible’ pool who have been identified as having significant responsibility for research on the census date.

Where the ‘Category A eligible’ staff definition accurately identifies all staff in the submitting unit with significant responsibility for research, the unit should submit 100% of staff. Where it does not accurately identify all staff in the submitting unit who have significant responsibility for research, institutions will need to implement processes to determine this and document this in a code of practice, approved by the relevant funding body with advice from the Equality and Diversity Advisory Panel (EDAP).

 

Submitting outputs:

  • The average number of outputs required per submitted FTE will be 2.5 (up from 2 outputs as previously suggested by HEFCE).
  • A minimum of one output will be required for each staff member employed on the census date (as expected).
  • A maximum of five outputs may be attributed to individual staff members (including those who have left) (down from 6 outputs as previously suggested by HEFCE).
  • Data on the distribution of outputs across staff in the unit, including staff who have left, will be provided to the sub-panels for consideration in relation to the assessment of the environment.

Output portability: A transitional approach is being adopted whereby outputs may be submitted by both the institution employing the staff member on the census date and the originating institution where the staff member was previously employed when the output was demonstrably generated. ‘Demonstrably generated’ will be determined by the date when the output was first made publicly available. This applies to the whole REF 2021 period.

Open access: The REF Open Access policy will be implemented as previous set out. This requires outputs within the scope of the policy (journal articles and some conference proceedings) to be deposited as soon after the point of acceptance as possible, and no later than three months after this date from 1 April 2018. Due to concerns around deposit on acceptance, a deposit exemption will be introduced from 1 April 2018 and remain in place for the rest of the REF 2021 publication period. This will allow outputs unable to meet this deposit timescale to remain compliant if they are deposited up to three months after the date of publication.

 

Number of impact case studies required

Submissions will include a total of one case study, plus one further case study per up to 15 FTE staff submitted, for the first 105 FTE staff returned (with a reduced requirement above this of one additional case study per 50 FTE staff). Submissions will therefore include a minimum of two case studies.

 

For the latest information, see our REF 2021 webpage.

HE Policy Update w/e 10 November 2017

HE Policy Update

w/e 10 November 2017

A research funding crisis?

Follow this link to read the  A research funding crisis? summary with all the diagrams and charts.

Or read the summary below without the charts.

Ahead of the Autumn 2017 Budget the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) has published How much is too much? Cross-subsidies from teaching to research in British Universities written by Russell Group PG Economics student Vicky Olive. The paper concludes that research within universities is reliant on subsidy by tuition fee funding. As international students pay higher fees more of their fees go towards research than home and EU students. The paper concludes that on average international students contribute £8,000 from their total fees towards research. While the figures vary between universities, in 2014/15 teaching income funded 14% of English university research (approx. £1 in every £7 spent).

The paper argues that although the UK has a leading global research performance (see diagram below) R&D expenditure is well below competitor nations and unsustainable in the long term.

The paper argues that In 2014/15 the UK HE sector had a sustainability gap of £1 billion. This is described as a looming crisis because of a number of factors:

  • the focus on value for money for students paying tuition fees
  • Brexit threats to EU research funding
  • the unwelcoming nature of current immigration policy
  • the improvement of HE education in countries where the UK traditionally recruits international students
  • the impact of UK austerity policy which has seen limited science and research budget growth.

The Conservative Government’s has a target to increase R&D spend to 3% of GDP. The paper suggests that to realise this target the following would need to occur:

  • the UK would need an additional 250,000 full fee-paying international students;
  • Research Councils and Funding Councils to spend an additional £3 billion on funding research;
  • industry to contribute an additional £700 million;
  • charities to contribute an additional £830 million;
  • government departments to contribute £760 million extra each year.

Current R&D expenditure is 1.7% of GDP (25% of which spend by HEIs, 66% of spend by industry). The Government has announced additional investment of £4.7 billion by 2020/21 for R&D, however, the paper argues this isn’t enough and that other sectors must also increase their investment. The paper summarises recent Government policy related to R&D budgets.

The paper considers, and discards, the notion of only providing QR funding for 4* research.

In addition to her calls to increase research investment the author states her aim is to bring together UKRI and OfS to facilitate a sensible research funding model which neither underfunds or jeopardises research sustainability nor exploits students. The paper also urges universities to push back and recover a greater proportion of full economic cost from industry funders, particularly when the research is not directly for the public good.

Nick Hillman, Director of HEPI, commented : ”Anyone who wants to end cross-subsidies must say how they would fund universities’ various roles properly. There are three pressing issues. First, those who fund university research – public and private funders as well as charities – do not cover anything like the full costs. Secondly, the cross-subsidy from tuition fees to research is probably not sustainable at current levels. Thirdly, the Government wants a near doubling in research and development spending as a share of GDP, yet recent funding injections are only enough to stand still.

Our conclusion is that the Chancellor needs to find another £1 billion for research in this year’s Budget, with some set aside for the work universities do with charities. But even this level of additional funding would mean stagnation relative to other countries. So we also need a strategy for increasing research spending to OECD levels over the next few years and German levels thereafter – as promised in the 2017 Conservative manifesto.

The Times covered the report in University research subsidised with £281m from tuition fees.

Separately but relevant to this debate:

  • THE have written about the latest OECD data stating it shows a levelling off in global numbers of mobile students after the exponential growth of late 1990s and 2000s – read Data bite: international student flows in focus.
  • As we near the Autumn 2017 Budget parliamentarians have been calling on the Government to support their campaigning interests. This week Vince Cable (Lib Dem Leader) covers education and research and development in his pre-budget speech: “Long term studies by the LSE have shown that the two main determinants of poor UK performance on productivity are lack of innovation (R&D as opposed to basic science where the UK is strong) and low levels of skills. The former problem is being addressed by R&D tax credits and by the work of Innovate UK, in particular the Catapult network, which Liberal Democrats launched in government as part of the Industrial Strategy.
  • The latter is a far less tractable problem and despite the progress we made in the Coalition in raising the number and quality of apprenticeships, especially Higher Apprenticeships, the programme is now slipping backwards largely because of clumsy implementation of the apprenticeship levy and the neglect of careers advice and guidance….a budget built around the industrial strategy, prioritising education and skills, R&D and infrastructure would, at the very least, send the right signals.

Interdisciplinary Research

HEFCE have opened sub-panel nominations for roles related to IDR within REF 2021 aiming to support and promote the fair and equitable assessment of IDR outputs and environment through:

  • the inclusion of Interdisciplinary Research advisers on each sub-panel
  • the continuation of the optional IDR flag
  • the inclusion of a specific IDR section in the environment template

In September HEFCE blogged on the importance of academics within interdisciplinary research culture in What creates a culture of interdisciplinary research? HEFCE described what the new IDR role may look like in Wednesday’s blog REF 2021: Where are we on interdisciplinary research?

Widening Participation and inclusivity

OFFA has commissioned a new evidence based research study: Understanding and overcoming the challenges of targeting students from under-represented and disadvantaged ethnic backgrounds.

HEA and Runnymede Trust will analyse existing practice across the sector and ‘produce a suite of practical guidance to support staff in a variety of different roles within universities and colleges in overcoming the challenges associated with this work’. The project is part of OFFA’s long-term aim to challenge and support universities and colleges to do more to address the differences in higher education participation, attainment and progression to further study or employment that persist between students from different ethnic groups.

Les Ebdon: “Black and minority ethnic (BME) students have been a key target group for OFFA for a number of years. But our research suggests that universities and colleges are struggling to target the activities they deliver through their access agreements where they are most needed…This project will help us understand how activities can be targeted appropriately and effectively towards students from disadvantaged and under-represented ethnic backgrounds, enabling OFFA to better support universities and colleges to accelerate progress in this crucial area.”

Principal Investigator, Jacqueline Stevenson, stated: “Our intention is not just to indicate the barriers institutions are facing, but also what they are able to do to address these entrenched and long-standing inequalities.”

 

 Scope call for inclusive workplaces: Scope has called on the Dept for Work and Pensions to develop universal, industry-standard information and best practice guidance for all businesses to support their employment and management of disabled people. Scope’s new research Let’s Talk found many disabled people struggle to share information about their impairment or condition in the workplace making it hard for them to access the support and adjustments they need to carry out their job.

 

Question to the Dept for Education: Office for Students

Andrew Percy (Con): Whether the remit of the Office for Students will include anti-discrimination on campus.

Jo Johnson (Con, Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research & Innovation): The government has published a consultation on behalf of the new Office for Students (OfS) regarding the regulation of the higher education sector. It proposes that, in its regulatory approach, the OfS will look to ensure that all students, from all backgrounds can access, succeed in, and progress from higher education.

Higher Education (HE) providers are autonomous organisations, independent from Government, and they already have responsibilities to ensure that they provide a safe, inclusive environment, including legal obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) to ensure that students do not face discrimination.

The OfS, like some HE providers, will also have obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty in part 11 of the Act. This includes a requirement that the OfS, when exercising its functions, has due regard to the need to: eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and any other unlawful conduct in the Act, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations in relation to protected characteristics.

In addition, in September 2015 the government asked Universities UK (UUK) to set up a Harassment Taskforce, composed of university leaders, student representatives and academic experts, to consider what more can be done to address harassment and hate crime on campus. The taskforce published its report, ‘Changing the Culture’, in October 2016, which sets out that universities should embed a zero-tolerance approach to sexual harassment and hate crime. This includes hate crime or harassment on the basis of religion or belief, such as antisemitism and Islamophobia. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is currently working with UUK to test the sector’s response to the Taskforce’s recommendations and the results of this will be published early in 2018.

 

House of Lord Questions – Disabled Student Allowance

Lord Addington (Lib Dem) has asked three parliamentary questions regarding the disabled students allowance.

Q1: Whether the evaluation of Disabled Students’ Allowances will include consideration of the need for third party advisers to have clarity of information about the respective responsibilities of higher education providers and claimants of those allowances.

Q2: Whether the evaluation of Disabled Students’ Allowances will include consideration of the benefits of issuing a guide to higher education providers about their responsibilities in relation to students claiming those allowances who fall into bands 1 and 2.

Q3: Whether the evaluation of Disabled Students’ Allowances will include consideration of the levels of information provided by higher education providers to students claiming those allowances about the respective responsibilities of those institutions and students.

The Earl of Courtown provided the same (non-)response to all three questions:

A: The evaluation of Disabled Students’ Allowances (DSA) will address a range of factors relating to the efficacy of support for disabled students, including the effect of recent changes to DSA policy.

 

Parliamentary Questions

 

Question to the Home Office – Visas: Overseas Students

Q -Jo Stevens (Labour): How much was accrued to the public purse from charging international students applying for Tier 4 student visas in each year since 2010.

A – Brandon Lewis (Con, Minister of State for Immigration): Visa income is not differentiated between the various categories in which they are received. Visa volumes by broad category (study, work etc) are published in the data section of this webpage: LINK Fees and unit costs are also published, for example, for 2017/18: LINK

 

Private Providers

Lord Storey (Lib Dem) has tabled two questions about the quality of private providers:

Q1 – On how many occasions in the last three years the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education has (1) raised concerns, and (2) taken action, regarding private colleges and providers of degrees

Q2 – What measures they are taking to provide quality assurance for students studying degree courses at a private college whose degrees are validated by a university

These are due for answer on Tuesday 21 November.

Consultations

Click here to view the updated consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.

New consultations and inquiries this week:

  • Two Dept for Health consultations on nursing, and one on regulation and workforce development of the health services
  • Jo Johnson has announced the sector will be asked for their opinion on two year degrees in a forthcoming consultation

Other news

Student Engagement: Guild HE have written for Wonkhe censuring the limited nature of student consultation and engagement proposed through the new Quality Code and critiquing both the TEF and the Office for Students in Engaging students as partners: two steps forward, one step back.

HE Policy Briefings

Awareness of policy is integral to many roles at BU and with HE constantly in the news it can be hard to sort the wood from the trees to keep current. We’re running two short and sharp HE Policy Briefings during November and December; all are welcome so come along to learn more!

The briefings will:

  • present the latest policy developments for universities and how they may affect BU, our staff and students
  • cover the next steps for the Teaching Excellence Framework, including subject level TEF, and how this could impact BU
  • support you to consider actions you could take to prepare for change and challenges arising from these development.

Email organisational development to attend on: Wed 22 November 12-13:00 at Lansdowne or Thurs 7 December 12-13:00 at Talbot (mince pies included!)

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                        Policy & Public Affairs Officer

65111                                                                                        65070

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter                   |                     policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

 

 

REF 2021 workshops – what makes a 2*, 3* or 4* output?

We have a series of externally-facilitated REF outputs workshops scheduled to take place in early 2018 as part of the RKE Development Framework. Each session is led by REF 2014 sub-panel member who will explain how the panel interpreted and applied the REF 2014 guidance when assessing the quality of outputs. The workshops are open to all academic staff to attend.

The expected learning outcomes from the workshops are for attendees to:

  • Gain insight into how the REF panels applied the REF criteria when considering the significance, rigour and originality of outputs;
  • Understand the differences between outputs scored 4*, 3*, 2*, 1* and Unclassified;
  • Gain insight into what is meant by ‘world leading’ and ‘internationally excellent’;
  • Understand how scores borderline cases were agreed and what the tipping points were to either break the ceiling into the higher star level or to hold an output back a star level;
  • Understand how panels used other information such as metrics, markers of journal quality or prior knowledge in output assessment;
  • Gain insight into how future outputs could be strengthened for REF2021.

 

We’ve got dates for half of the UOAs so far:

  • UOA 2/3 – Prof Dame Jill Macleod Clark – date tbc (likely to be mid to late February 2018)
  • UOA 4 – Prof Marion Hetherington – 10 January 2018
  • UOA 11 – Prof Iain Stewart – 29 January 2018
  • UOA 12 – Prof Chris Chatwin – 8 January 2018
  • UOA 14 – Prof Jon Sadler – date tbc
  • UOA 15 – Prof Graeme Barker – date tbc
  • UOA 17 – Prof Terry Williams – 17 January 2018
  • UOA 18 – tbc
  • UOA 20/21 – Prof Imogen Taylor – 15 January 2018
  • UOA 23 – Prof Jane Seale – 26 January 2018
  • UOA 24 – tbc
  • UOA 27 – Prof Pat Waugh – 16 January 2018
  • UOA 32 – Prof Stephen Partridge – date tbc
  • UOA 36 – Prof Peter Lunt – date tbc

Bookings for these can be made via the Staff Intranet: https://staffintranet.bournemouth.ac.uk/workingatbu/staffdevelopmentandengagement/fusiondevelopment/fusionprogrammesandevents/rkedevelopmentframework/researchexcellenceframework/

HE policy update for the w/e 15th September 2017

REF 2021

As we noted last week, on 1st September 2017 HEFCE published the initial decisions on REF 2021. This does not include decisions regarding submitting staff, output portability or the eligibility of institutions to participate in the REF. There is another consultation on those issues and BU’s response is being prepared by RKEO – please contact Julie Northam if you would like to be involved.  This week, the four UK funding bodies published a summary of the responses to the previous consultation. The document summarises the 388 formal responses to the consultation.

Consultation responses welcomed an overall continuity of approach with REF 2014 and recognised that this would reduce the burden on institutions and panels. Broad support was expressed for the principles behind Lord Stern’s recommendations. There were mixed responses to some of the proposed approaches to implementing the changes, in particular:

  • all-staff submission
  • non-portability of outputs
  • institutional-level assessment
  • open access and data sharing.

Feedback on these areas included concern about their effects on different disciplines or types of institution, their impact on specific groups, in particular early career researchers and those with protected characteristics, and the burden of implementation.

Some highlights:

  • Over a third of respondents suggested that the proposal might result in changes to contractual status, with some staff being moved to Teaching-only contracts. A small number of HEI respondents suggested that they would make such contract changes if the proposal is implemented.
  • “the predominant suggestion (by one-fifth of respondents addressing this issue) was that HEIs should retain a key role in identifying staff with significant responsibility for research”.
  • Many respondents stressed the importance of research independence as a criterion, especially for staff employed on Research-only contracts. The majority of respondents argued for a nuanced approach to the inclusion of research assistants where they could demonstrate research independence. There was some support for using the REF 2014 independence criteria, although many requested clearer guidance to limit the burden on HEIs.
  • Of those who commented on question 9c., asking for views on the minimum number of outputs per staff member, over half supported setting a minimum requirement of one output per person. Over one-third were in favour of no minimum at all. This support was often linked to the use of contracts to determine research-active status and concern about the ability to submit large numbers.
  • Of those who provided a clear view, around three-quarters did not support the introduction of non-portability rules.
  • Just over 50 per cent of respondents to Question 38 agreed in principle with the introduction of an institutional element to the environment template; this support came with a lot of caveats.
  • Almost half of the responses to Question 26 supported the principle of maintaining the volume of impact case studies overall. The majority recognised that this would affect the ratio of case studies required per FTE when applied alongside the submissions of all staff with significant responsibility for research. Respondents were keen to know the multiplier as soon as possible, to enable HEIs and submitting units to plan the number of case studies required.
  • A third of responses agreed that the minimum number of impact case studies per submission should be reduced to one. This was felt to be of particular benefit to smaller submitting units. However, a number of respondents discussed the risks associated with a minimum of one case study.
  • A small number of respondents drew attention to the Teaching Excellence Framework, which was mentioned in the context of incentivising research-led teaching and minimising burden on HEIs. It was stressed that an aligned approach is necessary to avoid creating a division between teaching and research

Office for Students

Higher Education Commission launched its report: ‘One size won’t fit all: the challenges facing the Office for Students’ The report makes recommendations for the OfS, following hot on the heels of those made by the Minister last week – it looks at alternative and niche provision. There’s a Wonkhe article here

Strategic challenges for the OfS:

  • The unintended consequences of policy reform and funding continue to favour the offer of certain modes of study and undermines choice for students
  • The balance between upholding quality and encouraging innovation is not achieved, either damaging the sector’s reputation or meaning the sector does not keep pace with changes in technology and the labour market
  • Innovation and growth in the sector does not effectively align with the industrial strategy or aspirations for regional growth
  • Price variation and two tier provision result in greater segregation across the system damaging social mobility
  • The student experience of higher education is undermined as some providers struggle with competition and funding challenges
  • Institutional decline, and ultimately failure, reduces choice and the quality of provision in certain areas, or damages the student experience or the perceived value of their qualification
  • The Office for Students in its new role as the champion of ‘choice for students’ and ‘value for the tax payer’ must address these challenges. It is hoped that the findings in this report and the recommendations outlined below will aid the new regulator in ensuring the continued success of the sector.

The report includes an interesting overview of how we got to where we are now, and then moves on to look at some knotty issues facing the sector, including alternative models, and a number of themes that arise in that context (such as access, support for students and progression). They look at class and course size, which is interesting given the new TEF focus on “teaching intensity”, practitioner lecturers, industry experience, sandwich degrees and apprenticeships. There is a chapter on funding, costs and fees and of course the report looks at part-time and accelerated courses, also another hot topic for universities as well as alternative providers.   The report also examines some of the perceived barriers to innovation which were cited in government papers – validation (which is described a barrier to innovation rather than entry) and retention being a problematic measure for alternative providers.

The consequences lf all this start in chapter 4 (page 55) where the report turns to recommendations for the OfS as the regulator.

The recommendations are:

  • Universities should learn lessons from the further education sector to create an environment that feels more accessible to students from low participation backgrounds.
  • The OfS should work with HEIs and alternative providers to identify how personalised and industry-orientated provision can be scaled up and replicated across the system.
  • The OfS, as a principal funder and regulator of the HE sector, should develop ways of incentivising industry practitioner involvement in universities.
  • Universities should consider flexible models of placements for sandwich degrees in order to meet the needs of SMEs.
  • The OfS should closely monitor the impact of degree apprenticeships on sandwich courses and other work based learning provision.
  • The OfS should address cost issues around part-time study and accelerated degree programmes, so as to support wider provision of these non-standard modes.
  • We recommend that the OfS monitors the implications of different delivery costs between HE and FE, not least in terms of enabling entry to part-time and mature students.
  • Research should be commissioned by the OfS to better understand how students, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, can be encouraged to use sources of information more critically in their HE choices.
  • The Office for Students should provide Parliament with an annual report mapping the diversity of provision across the higher education sector, commenting on trends and explanations for changing patterns of provision.
  • The DfE and the EFSA should consider the viability of allowing employers to use the apprenticeship levy to fund work-relevant part-time HE
  • The DfE should consider the extent to which accelerated and flexible programmes could be supported by changes to the funding based on credit.

Fees and funding

There was a debate in the House of Commons this week on an Opposition motion to reverse the legislation on tuition fees – these debates are non-binding and after the DUP said they would support them the government declined to have a formal vote – so they were passed. The same thing happened on a motion about the pay cap in the NHS.   As they were non-binding, this is largely symbolic, but much has been made about the “anti-democratic” implications of this..

Meanwhile, the Resolution Foundation hosted a lively debate on fees and funding – you can see the (very long) recording on YouTube, and the Times Higher did their own short version. Rumours persist that despite Jo Johnson’s staunch defence of the system, No. 10 may be getting cold feet, and the new fee cap for 2019/20 has still not been announced….

And Philip Hammond contributed to the speculation while giving evidence at the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee (reported widely, here is the Telegraph link):

“I do think there’s a significant difference between a graduate who leaves university with a, perhaps, quite significant level of debt and a well-recognised degree in an area which is known to provide strong employment opportunities; and a graduate on the other hand who perhaps has a very similar level of debt but who may not have a degree that is going to enhance his or her employment opportunities in the same way..

“We need to look at…the information we provide to students to enable them to make value-for-money assessments about what they are buying and what it’s going to cost them.”

And to contribute to the debate, the Commons Education Committee have launched an inquiry into value for money in HE. They are inviting written submissions on the following issues by 23rd October 2017:

  • Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data
  • Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students
  • Senior management pay in universities
  • Quality and effectiveness of teaching
  • The role of the Office for Students

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

65111                                                                                 65070

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter                        |                       policy@bournemouth.ac.uk