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 appropriately-

managed research environments If we lost it, we would never recover it

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

Va

lue

(£

M)

Academic Year

HEFCE QR Funding to HEI

HEI Research Income from Research Councils*

* Data from HESA reported as University ResearchGrants and Contracts income from the Research Councils

Changing Landscapes:Trends in HEFCE QR and RCUK Funding

to HEI for Research

Source: HEFCE; HESA

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

What’s wrong with the RAE?

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Va

lue

(£M

)

Academic Year

HEROBC

HEACF 1

HEACF 2

KTCF

HEIF 1

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

A Mixed Economy of Funding:HEFCE Business and Community Funding by

Stream 2000/01 – 2010/11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Va

lue

(£M

)

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

Indicators from the HE-BCI Survey (all UK) Academic year Percentage

Increase 2003/04 to

2007/08

Income from UK HEIs (£M real terms)

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

Collaborative research £496 £550 £544 £599 £573 £629 £687 £697 16% Contract research - - - £639 £666 £687 £804 £835 31% Consultancy £124 £143 £191 £233 £242 £255 £296 £335 44% Equipment services £31 £59 £76 £88 £82 £95 £95 £103 17% Regeneration - - £144 £239 £225 £239 £272 £238 0% Continuing professional development

- - - £326 £408 £425 £498 £537 65%

Intellectual property income (non-software & software licences)

- - £30 £34 £39 £44 £41 £45 32%

Total intellectual property income (including sale of shares)

- - £42 £42 £61 £61 £60 £66 57%

Outputs from UK HEIs

Patent applications - - - 1,308 1,648 1,536 1,913 1,898 45% Patents granted - - - 463 711 577 647 590 27% Formal spin-offs established - - - 167 148 187 226 219 31% Formal spin-offs still active after three years

- - - 688 661 746 844 923 34%

% UK HEIs that provide:

Enquiry point for SMEs 83% 85% - - 89% 90% 91% 91% - Short bespoke courses on client's premises

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!