Transcript David Eastwood

Research Funding and
Assessment: The Future
Professor David Eastwood
Vice-Chancellor and Principal
Research Assessment:
A History of Success
1986, 1989, 1992, 1996, 2001, 2008





Focus
Impact
Selectivity
Investment
Secured Funding
QR : The Prize





QR has delivered (but we’ve not told the story)
QR gives us the means to compete (it’s what you
have if you don’t have endowments)
It underpins the autonomy of research-led
universities
It empowers academics working in appropriatelymanaged research environments
If we lost it, we would never recover it
Changing Landscapes:
Trends in HEFCE QR and RCUK Funding
to HEI for Research
1700
1600
HEFCE QR Funding to HEI
1500
HEI Research Income from Research Councils*
1400
Value (£M)
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
*
600
Data from HESA reported as University Research
Grants and Contracts income from the
Research Councils
500
2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10
Academic Year
Source: HEFCE; HESA
What’s wrong with the RAE?

For too long, it’s been the only performance
management tool in the sector

It’s blamed for things it’s not responsible for

It’s over-engineered (but whose fault is that?)

It happens too often or too infrequently

We ask it to do things it’s not well adapted for

In 2008 there was uniquely no new money
A Mixed Economy of Funding:
HEFCE Business and Community Funding by
Stream 2000/01 – 2010/11
160
HEROBC
140
120
Value (£M)
100
HEACF 1
HEACF 2
KTCF
HEIF 1
80
60
40
20
0
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Academic Year
Block funding under HEIF rounds 1, 2 and 3 and KTCF have been distributed
equally across their allocation period as no year on year profile is available
Source: HEFCE
HEIF
160
140
120
Value (£M)
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Academic Year
Block funding under HEIF rounds 1, 2 and 3 and KTCF have been distributed
equally across their allocation period as no year on year profile is available
Source: HEFCE
Indicators from the HE-BCI Survey (all UK)
Academic year
Income from UK HEIs
(£M real terms)
Collaborative research
Contract research
Consultancy
Equipment services
Regeneration
Continuing professional
development
Intellectual property income (nonsoftware & software licences)
Total intellectual property income
(including sale of shares)
Outputs from UK HEIs
Patent applications
Patents granted
Formal spin-offs established
Formal spin-offs still active after
three years
% UK HEIs that provide:
Enquiry point for SMEs
Short bespoke courses on client's
premises
200001
200102
200203
200304
200405
200506
200607
200708
Percentage
Increase
2003/04 to
2007/08
£496
£124
£31
-
£550
£143
£59
-
£544
£191
£76
£144
£599
£639
£233
£88
£239
£573
£666
£242
£82
£225
£629
£687
£255
£95
£239
£687
£804
£296
£95
£272
£697
£835
£335
£103
£238
16%
31%
44%
17%
0%
-
-
-
£326
£408
£425
£498
£537
65%
-
-
£30
£34
£39
£44
£41
£45
32%
-
-
£42
£42
£61
£61
£60
£66
57%
-
-
-
1,308
463
167
1,648
711
148
1,536
577
187
1,913
647
226
1,898
590
219
45%
27%
31%
-
-
-
688
661
746
844
923
34%
83%
85%
-
-
89%
90%
91%
91%
-
63%
67%
-
-
78%
80%
84%
83%
-
Resources currently available to TSB

For the Comprehensive Spending review period to March
2011, TSB has been allocated:
– £711.4 million of Technology Strategy Board funding;
– aligned with £120 million from the Research Councils;
– and £180 million from the Regional Development
Agencies/Devolved Administrations;
– this gives a total set of aligned spending of £1,011.4 million to
be spent between 2008/09 and 2010/11.

TSB budget (excluding RDA and RC contributions) will rise
from £197 million in 2007/08 to £267 million by 2010/11
Some Known Unknowns







What will QR be in 2014?
What will the balance of dual support be?
What will happen to research volumes?
Will policy parameters change (STEM vs non STEM)?
Will cuts have rebalanced RAE 2008 funding
outcomes?
If funding and policy parameters have shifted
substantially, how long can RAE 2008 outcomes
remain a credible driver?
Remember the 5** fix – gerrymandering today, some
jam tomorrow, and destabilization the day after
Realism about REF

Peer review matters
 Metrics help
 Grant capture tells you something important
 Government, as investor, has a legitimate interest
in its return
 Impact can be evaluated
 QR is distributed to institutions
 RAE is cheap, REF can be cheaper
 Fewer panels
 More normalization
 Get on with it!