Senate
news
As
widely predicted, the government failed to fund the results
of the 2001 RAE, leaving universities across the country
facing hard decisions in devising a fair redistribution
of funds to their researchers.
Our
research grant for 2002-3 is £28,589,000, a packed Senate
was told, of which £27,700,000 will be allocated to departments
after 'topslicing' for equipment and animal licence fees.
This
is £4m less than we would have received had the RAE been
properly funded – but £3m more than last year's research
allocation.
HEFCE
has promised to address the shortfall for grade four and
five-rated subjects as soon as possible. For Leeds, that
will make a big difference – with 44 subjects rated
four or five. We hope to know in July – when the
Comprehensive Spending Review is announced – if this
will happen next year.
Meanwhile,
the University is attempting to devise a formula to distribute
this year's limited resources equitably.
This
job has been complicated by the funding council's methodology,
based on fixed pots of money for each subject and allocations
depending on the 'relative performance' of researchers
across the country.
As
a result, researchers in different subjects are being
rewarded differently for the same achievement. In areas
where there are many high scores, there is less money
for each five and five* researcher. As one member of Senate
complained – 'a five should mean a five should mean
a five'.
Strict
application of the HEFCE formula would appear to discriminate
in a number of ways, such as where there has been a substantial
uplift in grades across the country, like English, Medicine
and Law.
On
the other hand, our own formula for distributing research
funds, although able to accommodate local circumstances,
and in line with departmental research budgets, would
have a detrimental effect upon a different set of departments.
It
was agreed that academic development committee on April
10 will devise an appropriate formula, taking into account
Senate's concerns. ADC has already set aside £800,000
to support strategic plans to improve research in departments
graded four and below.
A
proposal to cut bureaucracy by moving towards fewer, larger
resource centres – perhaps nine 'colleges' –
was greeted with interest.
Further
work was needed, Senate agreed, to develop models and
case studies illustrating how the plans might address
the administrative burden on academics.
Change
would need to be evolutionary, taking into account the
need for academics to retain control of academic activities,
Senate agreed. Any claimed benefits or efficiency gains
needed to be clearly demonstrated, to avoid the risk of
creating another layer of bureaucracy.
The
enhancement of working lives – at all levels
– was another important priority, it was agreed.
See
the full proposal.
A new model for allocating the Library's materials budget
between departments has been agreed by Senate. The model
will be in place for the academic year 2002/2003 and will
be reviewed after one year.
In
debate, the large majority of Senate members supported
the new model, saying its transparent, managed approach
would bring substantial improvements.
See
the full proposal
Dr
Helen Miller of biological sciences and Professor José
Closs, Ms Janet Jagger, Professor Philip Quirke and Professor
Christopher Wild from medicine, dentistry, psychology
and health have been elected to Senate by their faculties
for three years from August 2002.
