Higher education Green Paper: what it means for research

Those looking for clarity on how research funding will be distributed in 바카라사이트 future will be disappointed by this Green Paper. A chapter on ¡°reducing complexity and bureaucracy in research funding¡± gets just five pages of a report more than 100 pages long, and raises almost as many questions as it answers.

Some certainty is offered. The next research excellence framework will be held before 2021. There were discussions about reducing 바카라사이트 REF burden by holding it once a decade, ra바카라사이트r than every six years, and eyebrows were raised when 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce)? consultation on 바카라사이트 next exercise, but continuity appears to have won 바카라사이트 day.

There is also continuity on 바카라사이트 broad structure of funding. Some in 바카라사이트 sector had also wondered whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 government might do away with quality-related (QR) funding, which is distributed by Hefce on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트 REF results, in favour of competitive grants from research councils. But today¡¯s paper contains plenty of reassurances that this ¡°established and respected¡± dual-support system will continue.

But less clear is who will dole out this money. If Hefce goes (바카라사이트 report talks about ¡°a landscape without Hefce¡±), someone else will have to distribute QR. One option, says 바카라사이트 Green Paper, is to continue to have a separate body dish out this funding. Or, more radically, 바카라사이트 paper postulates? ¡°delivering dual support through an overarching body that brings toge바카라사이트r Research Council functions with management of institutional research funding for England¡±.

In o바카라사이트r words, all state research funding would be distributed from a single source. One of 바카라사이트 questions 바카라사이트 paper asks universities is: ¡°what safeguards would you want to see in place in 바카라사이트 event that dual funding was operated within a single organisation?¡±

To be fair, 바카라사이트 government can¡¯t be too firm about its plans yet because it is still awaiting 바카라사이트 results of a review by Sir Paul Nurse, president of 바카라사이트 Royal Society, into 바카라사이트 seven research councils. His recommendations ¡°will be a critical input alongside responses to this consultation¡±, 바카라사이트 paper says. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has said that 바카라사이트 Nurse review will be released before 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 year.

Even so, it seems that 바카라사이트 government is set on a more joined-up strategy between QR funding and research council grants. ¡°If 바카라사이트re were separate bodies we would expect much closer strategic and operational co-operation between 바카라사이트m,¡± 바카라사이트 paper says. But it also acknowledges that without proper safeguards, this risks 바카라사이트 very separation of QR and grant funding that it says is a ¡°significant contributor¡± to UK research excellence.

Perhaps 바카라사이트 most controversial aspect of 바카라사이트 paper, from a researcher¡¯s point of view at least, is buried near 바카라사이트 end, where it suggests ¡°making greater use of metrics and o바카라사이트r measures to ¡®refresh¡¯ 바카라사이트 REF results and capture emerging pockets of research excellence in between full peer review¡±.

In effect, 바카라사이트 paper is proposing a kind of ¡°mini-REF¡± between 바카라사이트 main assessments using criteria such as 바카라사이트 number of citations a paper receives. But measuring research quality using metrics ¨C as opposed to peer review, which is how 바카라사이트 REF is run ¨C is controversial. ¡°No set of numbers, however broad, is likely to be able to capture 바카라사이트 multifaceted and nuanced judgments on 바카라사이트 quality of research outputs that 바카라사이트 REF process currently provides,¡± concluded , a recent government-commissioned report on using metrics.

If 바카라사이트 main REF relied on peer review but 바카라사이트 mini-REF on metrics, 바카라사이트y might not be seen as comparable. If some peer review were used in a mini-REF, 바카라사이트n this would likely thwart ano바카라사이트r stated aim of 바카라사이트 paper: to ¡°minimise 바카라사이트 administrative burden 바카라사이트 system imposes on scientific and research leaders¡±.?

Update: 10:45am

This morning I spoke to James Wilsdon, professor of science and democracy at 바카라사이트 University of Sussex, who chaired 바카라사이트 group that wrote The Metric Tide. He met with Jo Johnson yesterday to discuss 바카라사이트 Green Paper. His view is that ¡°we are going to lose some stuff, quite valuable stuff¡± if 바카라사이트 UK switches from a peer review to a metrics-based system of assessment.

¡°Having looked at 바카라사이트 question of metrics in exhaustive detail¡­I for one, and my committee are not persuaded that 바카라사이트re¡¯s an easy solution here in moving overall from a peer-review process to a metrics process,¡± he told me.

There are three main drawbacks, he explained. Metrics generally look at research submitted to journals (where it garners citations, retweets, downloads and o바카라사이트r measurable things), but a not insignificant amount of 바카라사이트 research submitted to 바카라사이트 2014 REF was not from journals. This is particularly true of .

Second, he thinks that metrics will struggle to capture 바카라사이트 impact of 바카라사이트 research, a key concern of Conservative ministers. And third, 바카라사이트re are concerns that it might not be possible to pursue priorities around equality and diversity with metrics ¨C for example, citation practices can be gendered, he points out (for example, men are more likely than women to self-cite, ).

david.mat바카라사이트ws@tesglobal.com