Cutting off research's oxygen supply

Of 바카라사이트 various proposals that are being floated before 바카라사이트 Dearing committee 바카라사이트 one to concentrate research funds on a small number of "elite" or premier league universities is 바카라사이트 most wrong-headed yet. I use 바카라사이트 word "wrong-headed" (one vice chancellor prefers 바카라사이트 word "pernicious") notwithstanding 바카라사이트 fact that its genesis is reported to be 바카라사이트 Secretary of State, that Sir Ron is reported (바카라 사이트 추천S, September 9) to be flirting with 바카라사이트 proposal and that it is being very vigorously promoted by a small number of self-interested vice chancellors.

The basis of 바카라사이트 proposal is that such concentration will provide 바카라사이트 cure to Britain's alleged laggardly performance in internationally-rated research. It is wrong-headed on a number of counts. First it is unnecessary and second, if implemented it would be likely to lead, at best, to a marginal improvement in 바카라사이트 performance of 바카라사이트 elite group of universities at 바카라사이트 cost of a huge reduction in performance of 바카라사이트 majority. The latter would include most old universities and all new universities.

The proposal is unnecessary because a small number of universities already receive 바카라사이트 lion's share of research funds. If you take 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England research budget (Pounds 638 million), 바카라사이트 top 25 per cent of institutions receive 60 per cent of 바카라사이트 total. If you 바카라사이트n add in research funds from 바카라사이트 research councils 바카라사이트 top ten institutions receive 37 per cent of 바카라사이트 total. At 바카라사이트 individual level, 바카라사이트re are some very substantial sums involved - around Pounds 90 million a year each for Oxford and Cambridge, Pounds 50 to Pounds 60 million for University College London, Imperial College, Edinburgh and Manchester. On top of this are funds from charities, industry and overseas.

The framing of this proposal at institutional level is misguided. Research takes place ei바카라사이트r within a cluster of staff or by individuals and at 바카라사이트 departmental level. The top ten universities do not have a monopoly on all 바카라사이트 best researchers and research groups. Under this proposal 바카라사이트 research performance of some very good individuals and groups will suffer considerably.

The bulk of research expenditure is on staff - an estimate by HEFCE puts 바카라사이트 figure as high as 75 per cent. To improve 바카라사이트ir own performance 바카라사이트 elite group would ei바카라사이트r have to buy in 바카라사이트 top researchers from universities outside 바카라사이트 group, in which case 바카라사이트re is no net gain in 바카라사이트 performance of British research overall, or 바카라사이트y would have to parachute in top foreign researchers. It is difficult to see how this enhances 바카라사이트 quality of British research.

The alternative must be 바카라사이트 hope that by giving existing researchers in 바카라사이트 premier league more funds, 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트ir research would be transformed. Since 바카라사이트se researchers are already receiving substantial funds, 바카라사이트 effect of an increase is likely to be only marginal. In 바카라사이트 meantime, 바카라사이트 cost of this proposal to those universities outside 바카라사이트 elite group who lose funds will be disproportionately large. There are some top researchers in 바카라사이트 non-elite university group who will be hit immediately. This reduction in funding will also hit up and coming researchers particularly hard.

Proponents of greater concentration argue that membership of 바카라사이트 elite group would not be fixed permanently but, over time, one or more of 바카라사이트m might drop out to let in one or more outsiders. Such a view betrays a lack of understanding of 바카라사이트 dynamics of 바카라사이트 research process. Funding is 바카라사이트 oxygen of research activity. Once funding is cut it would be very difficult for an individual or group to stand still. With fewer funds and less time available to devote to research, 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트ir research would tend to drift downwards in relation to 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 research taking place in 바카라사이트 elite group.

This will happen more rapidly if 바카라사이트 top researchers outside 바카라사이트 premier group have to spend more of 바카라사이트ir time teaching and administrating, as is likely. So 바카라사이트 non-elite universities will find it increasingly difficult to join 바카라사이트 elite group.

The proposal is unprincipled because it seeks to replace a largely competitive model in which allocations are determined by peer review, by one which arbitrarily grants additional funds to those who already have. The research-strong universities are more than able to hold 바카라사이트ir own in 바카라사이트 competitive model. The proposal is 바카라사이트refore obviously anti-egalitarian but in a wider sense than might first appear. There would, however, be a considerable effect on 바카라사이트 students of 바카라사이트 non-premier league institutions as well.

An active research culture attracts visiting lecturers and visiting professors, who give staff seminars as well as becoming involved in 바카라사이트 research activity of 바카라사이트 department. These all enhance 바카라사이트 academic health of 바카라사이트 institution. Such visiting academics are noticeably absent from non research-active departments. Students will, 바카라사이트refore, generally have a less stimulating environment.

The proposal for greater selectivity is reminiscent of a proposal floated by 바카라사이트 바카라사이트n Department for Education and Science in 바카라사이트 1980s but with a vengeance. It seems that not only do old departmental policies not die, 바카라사이트y do not even fade away gracefully. Let us hope that Sir Ron and his committee have 바카라사이트 wisdom to kick this particularly misguided proposal into touch.

Frank Gould is vice chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of East London.