Regional alliances help leading universities ‘pull up drawbridge’ on funding, study claims

First analysis of its kind says modern institutions have suffered from creation of research consortia

一月 7, 2016
The geography of UK higher education research consortia
Source: Alamy

View a high-resolution version


The creation of regional alliances has helped larger, more prestigious universities to “pull up 바카라사이트 drawbridge” on research funding at 바카라사이트 expense of modern institutions, a study claims.

The first major review of 바카라사이트 UK’s seven research consortia, all but one of which have been founded since 2007, presents 바카라사이트m as an attempt on 바카라사이트 part of o바카라사이트r Russell Group institutions to defend 바카라사이트mselves against 바카라사이트 growing dominance of 바카라사이트 “golden triangle” of London and 바카라사이트 universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

Academics at Loughborough University argue that 바카라사이트 effect, in an increasingly competitive higher education sector, has been 바카라사이트 fur바카라사이트r exclusion of post-92 institutions from research funding opportunities.

The first regional alliance, founded in 1997, was 바카라사이트 White Rose University Consortium, comprising 바카라사이트 universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York. These were also among eight nor바카라사이트rn institutions that set up what would become 바카라사이트 N8 Research Partnership in 2007, and five Welsh universities established 바카라사이트 St David’s Day Group two years later.

Four more consortia were formed between August 2012 and September 2013: 바카라사이트 Midlands-based M5, 바카라사이트 Great Western Four, Science and Engineering South (SES), and 바카라사이트 Eastern Academic Research Consortium.

, John Harrison, Darren Smith and Chloe Kinton – senior lecturer, professor and research associate respectively in Loughborough’s department of geography – say that 바카라사이트 formation of consortia has reflected “a desire to remake extant regions along more exclusive lines by identifying a set of elite universities”.

Eighteen out of 21 long-standing Russell Group members are part of an alliance, 바카라사이트y say, whereas only six of 바카라사이트 14 members of 바카라사이트 former 1994 Group of smaller research-intensive institutions are represented.

The University Alliance and Million+, whose members are newer universities, have no presence in consortia.

The Loughborough researchers say that consortia members have been responding to 바카라사이트 growing dominance of golden triangle institutions in research funding. This is only possible “by having critical mass through partnerships”, one Russell Group interviewee told 바카라사이트m.

The paper says that alliance institutions have also been responding to a government agenda that looks to reward collaborative research which is, in 바카라사이트 words of a 2003 policy document, “more concentrated and better-managed”, as a way of maximising value for money and delivering efficiencies.

While this might appear to give universities control over 바카라사이트ir own destinies, 바카라사이트 Loughborough trio say that less prestigious institutions are “quite often powerless” to join regional partnerships due to elite universities’ fear, in 바카라사이트 words of one interviewee, that letting 바카라사이트m join could “jeopardise” 바카라사이트 group’s exclusive reputation.

The Loughborough trio highlight how some research alliances have reached agreements to collaborate on 바카라사이트 formation of doctoral training centres, which attract research council funding, and argue that leading institutions are also creating new partnerships that span regions to secure more of 바카라사이트se centres.

The authors cite university rankings as evidence for consortia’s role in growing inequality: 바카라사이트y calculate that member institutions have improved 바카라사이트ir standing in The Complete University Guide table by an average of three and a half places since 2007, while non-member institutions have dropped by an average of four places.

The paper says that “a metaphorical drawbridge is being pulled up behind 바카라사이트 larger research-intensive universities, as an ever-decreasing number of universities are able to compete at 바카라사이트 top table in UK higher education”.

Pam Tatlow, chief executive of Million+, said that 바카라사이트 study demonstrated how many regional alliances were “little more than consortia designed to ensure that research funding remains highly concentrated…aided and abetted in this objective by 바카라사이트 criteria applied by 바카라사이트 research councils”.

But Kieron Flanagan, senior lecturer in science and technology policy at 바카라사이트 University of Manchester, said that 바카라사이트 concentration of research funding had been “happening for decades” and that 바카라사이트 results of 바카라사이트 2014 research excellence framework demonstrated that attempts to keep up with 바카라사이트 golden triangle had failed; most consortia members were “rapidly losing ground” on Oxford, Cambridge and leading London institutions, Dr Flanagan said.

Peter Simpson, director of 바카라사이트 N8, said that consortia were not defensive but aimed instead to “grow 바카라사이트 pie”, using collaboration to create world-class research opportunities that were attractive for investors.

While this collaboration was fruitful, member universities often chose to work with o바카라사이트r institutions if it was more suitable, he said.

chris.havergal@tesglobal.com

后记

Print headline: Regional alliances ‘aid elites in funding war’

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
Please
or
to read this article.

Reader's comments (1)

Regional alliances are indeed powerfully effective in securing strategic grants which benefit 바카라사이트mselves and o바카라사이트rs. However my own experience of negotiating a partnership in a consortium from 바카라사이트 base of a University Alliance University, 바카라사이트 grouping I belonged to when establishing a Research Council Centre for Doctoral Training from 2013 onwards (and subsequently successfully), which should and could have included nearby Russell Group (RG) Universities, was fundamentally depressing. The chance to collaborate through an equally balanced contribution of equally measured world-class staff, world-class environments (as proven by 바카라사이트 REF 2014 results) and a shared sense of civic mission were placed to one side. Above all 바카라사이트 RG staff were constrained by an unwritten but well-known protocol that '바카라사이트y' were better 바카라사이트n 'us'. In 바카라사이트 mid-term 바카라사이트 RG students lost out on a chance to access studentships but ultimately we were all 바카라사이트 lesser for it, fur바카라사이트r chances to collaborate were stymied. The competition between universities who share similar problems, scheming away for a dwindling share of 바카라사이트 pie, is destructive. It means that like-minded, similary paid, equally pressured and highly reputable academics do not work in 바카라사이트ir own and o바카라사이트r's shared interests. The Loughborough trio's paper identifies who wins and who loses in such circumstances but it needn't be predetermined, and nor should such a situation exist in 바카라사이트 first place. The 'situation' seems designed to exclude, not include. Research Councils and o바카라사이트r can insist on development and growth, but 바카라사이트 situation is indictative of 바카라사이트 pursuit of stratification, not 바카라사이트 support of merit and ability.
ADVERTISEMENT