Leader column
We always knew that the research assessment exercise would bring joy to some,
and disappointment or relief to others. We hadn’t perhaps imagined we would be
experiencing all three simultaneously.
First things first. Our University turned in a tremendous performance of which we can be extremely proud. We increased the volume of research activity in line with the sector average, and quality improvements saw us leap 12 places up to 14th in the country.
As I said last month, RAE 2008 has restored the University to its rightful and indisputable place as one of the nation’s leading intellectual powerhouses. It’s further confirmation that Leeds is on the move, further recognition by our peers of our distinctive achievements and further evidence that our strategic focus is absolutely correct.
The funding outcome is quite another matter. Although there has been a general uplift of 7.7%, the entirely predictable outcome of the change in RAE methodology has spread the money more thinly across the sector, resulting in a 3% transfer of funds away from research-intensive universities.
The overall increase for Leeds of 2.1% for 2009/10 in core government support for research and teaching (bringing the total to £143m) is welcome, and I am relieved not to have lost significant amounts of QR (quality research) income, but it is disappointing at the same time that the reward for a combination of significantly improved quality and more staff submitted was not greater.
Our QR income increased by only 0.7%, much less than inflation and well below the 7.7% increase in HEFCE’s total research budget.
As the funding council’s director of research David Sweeney observed, participants in RAE 2008 “have had to run quite hard to keep up”. In other words, to maintain your income you had to improve research quality and increase volume well above average – a particular challenge for those who had done well in the last RAE. Consequently, some of our finest schools with international profiles as well as a critical mass of excellence housed in leading universities, including Imperial, the London School of Economics, University College London and Cambridge (we are in good company), have lost out in absolute or relative terms.
Here at Leeds, those facing cuts to core research funding next year include among others English, Transport Studies and Geography (ranked 8th, 4th and 6th respectively in the country for the quality of their research). Our faculty of biological sciences – a respectable 11th out of 52 in the country and fourth in Nature’s research power table – is facing a 20% reduction in core research income.
We have winners of course, among them medicine, engineering, modern languages and performance, visual arts and culture (a great outcome for our strategic investment in the Bretton relocation). While there will be no formulaic support for those losing income, we will be working closely with those who have fallen short of their aspirations to develop positive, strategic, sustainable plans, supported as appropriate by strategic academic development funds.
This isn’t by any means the end of the story. The contribution of the UK’s universities to our national prosperity is generally accepted; we now have to make and win the argument that we are key to helping the country out of recession, and that will require extra, substantial and strategic support in areas where the UK has competitive edge and world-leading excellence, particularly (but not exclusively) in science and technology.
President Obama’s commitment of some $120bn* for science and technology research and development as part of his country’s economic stimulus package has been welcomed by our political leaders, and we will be looking to them to underwrite their confidence in our research-intensive universities with a similarly focused effort in the UK.
On the industrial relations front, there are encouraging reports of good progress in discussions at the arbitration service ACAS, hopefully clearing the way for all campus unions to be present at the first national negotiating meeting about this year’s pay settlement at the end of this month.
The ideal outcome of this year’s pay round will take into account the financial volatilities we all face, the 5% efficiency savings we’ve already had to make and our desire to stay on track with our strategy, while at the same time acknowledging the commitment and hard work of our staff.
The decision by all members of the Vice-Chancellor’s Executive Group (myself included) not to accept a pay rise this year acknowledges the seriousness of the current financial situation we are facing, but it doesn’t of course mean we expect others to follow suit. I can’t put a figure on an increase, but I am sure there will be one, and I am very hopeful it will be the product of negotiations rather than dispute.
* Obama’s science boost, New Scientist http://tinyurl.com/cwt4qr