DOCSLIB.ORG

This Electronic Thesis Or Dissertation Has Been Downloaded from Explore Bristol Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
This Electronic Thesis Or Dissertation Has Been Downloaded from Explore Bristol Research This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from Explore Bristol Research, http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk Author: Wells, Lee Title: A Critical Realist Analysis of the Legitimising Affects of the Entrepreneurial University General rights Access to the thesis is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License. A copy of this may be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode This license sets out your rights and the restrictions that apply to your access to the thesis so it is important you read this before proceeding. Take down policy Some pages of this thesis may have been removed for copyright restrictions prior to having it been deposited in Explore Bristol Research. However, if you have discovered material within the thesis that you consider to be unlawful e.g. breaches of copyright (either yours or that of a third party) or any other law, including but not limited to those relating to patent, trademark, confidentiality, data protection, obscenity, defamation, libel, then please contact [email protected] and include the following information in your message: •Your contact details •Bibliographic details for the item, including a URL •An outline nature of the complaint Your claim will be investigated and, where appropriate, the item in question will be removed from public view as soon as possible. A Critical Realist Analysis of the Legitimising Affects of the Entrepreneurial University Lee Wells A dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance with the requirements for award of the degree of Doctor of Education (EdD) in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Law School of Education December 2019 Word Count: 82,000 Abstract Despite the expansive literature on the Entrepreneurial University, very little has been written regarding the impact of university entrepreneurialism on the legitimacy of the university. This study hopes to address this shortcoming by conducting a detailed analysis of newspaper articles, taken to represent a proxy of public opinion (Baum, 1995). Grounded in the findings of this analysis the study will present a conceptual framework describing the antecedents of university legitimacy within an entrepreneurially driven university sector. The study is grounded in a critical realist philosophy and therefore accepts that outcomes, seen and unseen, experienced or not in the real world are determined by structures and mechanisms laden in hegemony and on culturally contingent interpretations of the social world (Bourdieu et al., 1991). Nevertheless, these structures, seen or unseen, remain very real in an ontological sense as they cause people to act, to invoke experience and to search for understanding. The current literature on the entrepreneurial university lacks a clear consensus on definition, preferring to identify shared characteristics (Yusof and Jain, 2010) and provides limited systematic examination of the barriers and enablers to entrepreneurialism (Kirby et al., 2011). The literature is often case study based and descriptive (Sotiris, 2012) with limited causal depth (Stam, 2015). This study hopes to overcome these limitations by utilising an innovative research methodology that integrates a grounded theory approach within a critical realist three-domain model of reality (Fleetwood, 2004) to explore the complex relationships and causal affects between entrepreneurial endeavour and university legitimacy. The study ultimately finds that the current preference for analysing the entrepreneurial university as an egocentric entity within a complex, open system may only partly reveal the multifaceted interrelationships between the university and its environment, thereby limiting causal inference. By addressing this concern, the study hopes to provide recommendations that extend both current theoretic and applied professional knowledge in relation to the entrepreneurial university and its legitimacy. 2 Acknowledgements I would like to start by thanking a group of people that seldom appear in dissertation acknowledgement sections, the administrative and backroom team at the University of Bristol School of Education. Due to serious illness, this has be long and often interrupted journey. During this time, the administration team have been fantastic. Always supportive, understanding and patient, they have gone beyond the call of duty to ensure my studies could progress and my personal welfare was not compromised. My personal thanks go to Mia Gilson, Gina Biggs, Daisy Perry and Liz Roberts, and of course to all the other individuals who ensure the department is such a great place to study. In a similar vein, I would like to thank Dr Sally Thomas for her wise counsel and support, especially in the early stages of the programme. Without her guidance and encouragement, it would have been so easy to give up before I really got started. I would also like to thank all the academic staff at the School of Education, especially Dr Frances Giampapa, Professor Michael Crossley, Dr Lisa Lucas, Dr Angeline Barrett, Professor Leon Tikly, Dr Malcolm Reed, Professor Sheila Trahar, and Ms. Wan Ching Yee. Your teaching has not only made me think differently, it has also changed me as person (for the better I hope!) Thank you. From Bristol, I would finally like to thank my supervisor, Dr Helen Manchester. It has taken more time than we both expected but I am so grateful that you were able (and willing) to continue as my supervisor, on my return from suspension due to illness. You have an uncanny knack of saying just the right thing at the right time to keep me encouraged and directed. Your values, insight and enthusiasm have been an inspiration to me and are very much reflected in the words of this dissertation. My final words, because thanks are just not enough, go to my wife Alison to whom this dissertation is dedicated. I’m sure you’ll be almost more pleased than me that it’s complete. Like most other things in my life, I could not have achieved this without you. You make everything possible, but more importantly, you make everything worthwhile. 3 Author’s Declaration I declare that the work in this dissertation was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the University's Regulations and Code of Practice for Research Degree Programmes and that it has not been submitted for any other academic award. Except where indicated by specific reference in the text, the work is the candidate's own work. Work done in collaboration with, or with the assistance of, others, is indicated as such. Any views expressed in the dissertation are those of the author. SIGNED: .....Lee Wells........................ DATE: .....1 December 2019.......... 4 Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Research Context: Legitimacy and the Entrepreneurial University .................................................... 11 1.2 Key Issues and Research Questions .................................................................................................... 12 1.3 The Objectives and Originality of the Research .................................................................................. 13 1.4 Dissertation Structure ......................................................................................................................... 15 2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 17 2.1 The Concept of Legitimacy ................................................................................................................. 17 2.2 The Historical Legitimacy of the University ........................................................................................ 20 2.2.1 Nation State Driven Legitimacy .................................................................................................. 21 2.2.2 Economic Driven Legitimacy ....................................................................................................... 23 2.3 The Emergence of the Entrepreneurial University ............................................................................. 26 2.3.1 Commercial Exploitation of University Research ........................................................................ 27 2.3.2 Government Policy and the Entrepreneurial University .............................................................. 28 2.3.3 Internal Transformation into the Entrepreneurial University ..................................................... 41 2.3.4 The Changing External Environment ........................................................................................... 45 2.3.5 Summary: The Emergence of the Entrepreneurial University ..................................................... 48 2.4 Defining the Entrepreneurial University ............................................................................................. 50 2.4.1 Different Perspectives in Defining the Entrepreneurial University .............................................. 50 2.4.2 Challenges in Defining the Entrepreneurial University................................................................ 53 2.4.3 Alternatives to the Entrepreneurial University ............................................................................ 54 2.4.4 Summary: Defining the Entrepreneurial University ...................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mothers in Science
    The aim of this book is to illustrate, graphically, that it is perfectly possible to combine a successful and fulfilling career in research science with motherhood, and that there are no rules about how to do this. On each page you will find a timeline showing on one side, the career path of a research group leader in academic science, and on the other side, important events in her family life. Each contributor has also provided a brief text about their research and about how they have combined their career and family commitments. This project was funded by a Rosalind Franklin Award from the Royal Society 1 Foreword It is well known that women are under-represented in careers in These rules are part of a much wider mythology among scientists of science. In academia, considerable attention has been focused on the both genders at the PhD and post-doctoral stages in their careers. paucity of women at lecturer level, and the even more lamentable The myths bubble up from the combination of two aspects of the state of affairs at more senior levels. The academic career path has academic science environment. First, a quick look at the numbers a long apprenticeship. Typically there is an undergraduate degree, immediately shows that there are far fewer lectureship positions followed by a PhD, then some post-doctoral research contracts and than qualified candidates to fill them. Second, the mentors of early research fellowships, and then finally a more stable lectureship or career researchers are academic scientists who have successfully permanent research leader position, with promotion on up the made the transition to lectureships and beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Review 2019 & Vision for 2020
    Daphne Jackson Trust Annual Review 2019 1 Changing Landscapes Annual Review 2019 & vision for 2020 Daphne Jackson Trust Annual Review 2019 3 Welcome from Teresa Anderson Chair of the Daphne Jackson Trust When we chose the working title punch well above its weight, as a small ever faced. Recent world events have of ‘Changing Landscapes’ for this charity, which is really making a big taught us that science and innovation annual review, we didn’t realise difference. The Fellowships offered by offer hope and optimism. Now is the quite how well this title would the Trust are still quite unlike any other time to recognise this and magnify our describe the situation we are currently available in either academia or impact by collaborating across disciplines, all in as this is finalised. The main in industry, and offer the best chance of institutions and countries. The work of purpose of this review, though, is success for a returning researcher. the Daphne Jackson Trust must be part to highlight the tremendous success of this. With everyone’s commitment I of the Trust in 2019, even in the It is undoubtedly a challenging time for am confident we will succeed and prosper. midst of the uncertainties caused researchers and institutions; uncertainty by Brexit, which have now, in 2020, exists across the higher education and been eclipsed by the unprecedented the UK science and research sectors. changes and challenges from the It’s important for all of us to continue COVID-19 pandemic. We will then to collaborate with our networks and Contents colleagues around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • 20 October 2015
    20 October 2015 Agenda The subject of the meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary University Group is Universities and Europe: why EU membership and reform matter. 6.00pm Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods MP, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary University Group, welcome and introductions. 6.05pm Professor Julia Goodfellow, Vice-Chancellor, University of Kent and President, Universities UK 6.15pm Neil Carmichael MP, Chair, Conservative Europe Group 6.25pm Pawel Swidlicki, Policy Analyst, Open Europe 6.40pm Questions, comments, and discussion with university leaders, MPs and Peers. 7.30pm Speaker meeting concludes. Guests move to Dining Room B for dinner. 1 Speaker biographies Professor Julia Goodfellow Professor Dame Julia Goodfellow has been Vice- Chancellor of the University of Kent since 2007. She was appointed to both the Science and Technology Facilities Council and Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology in 2011. She took up the post of President of Universities UK in August 2015. Julia’s scientific studies pioneered the use of computational methods to study the structures of large biologically important molecules. She became Professor of Biomolecular Sciences in 1995 at Birkbeck, University of London, where she was appointed Vice-Master in 1998. Before joining Kent, Julia was Chief Executive of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). Neil Carmichael MP Neil was first elected to Parliament in 2010 and serves as MP for Stroud, re-elected this May with an increased majority. He was elected to Chair of the Education Select Committee in June 2015, having served as a member of the Education Select Committee between 2010 and 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Staff Changes Emma Bennett Joined the Academy As Exhibits Regularly in the UK and Europe
    Council Election Nobel Prize Congratulations to the following Fellows who Dr Sydney Brenner were elected to serve as new members of FRS HonFMedSci was awarded The Council with effect from 21 November 2002. Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 2002 for his research into genetic regulation of organ development and Professor Carol Black programmed cell death. Though now based in California, President, The Royal College of Physicians and Professor of Sydney Brenner’s discoveries whilst working in Cambridge, Rheumatology, Royal Free and University College Medical School UK, laid the foundation for this year’s prize which was awarded jointly to H Robert Horvitz and John E Sulston. Professor Nancy Rothwell MRC Research Professor, University of Manchester Professor Julia Goodfellow Chief Executive, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Professor Colin Bird Sir Douglas Black Formerly Dean of Medicine and Provost of Faculty Group of Medical and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh Sir Douglas Black: died September 13, 2002. It is with Medical School much sadness that we record the passing of a distinguished Honorary Fellow. The Black report was widely Professor Jonathan Cohen regarded as the most authoritative publication on the link Dean, Brighton & Sussex Medical School between poor health and social deprivation. That it became Professor Thomas Kirkwood so influential was at least in part due to the then Professor of Medicine, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne Government’s efforts to suppress its publication. Council is pleased to announce the appointment of Sir John Skehel, Sir Douglas was a widely respected and much loved FRS FMedSci, as Shadow Vice-President with responsibility for Professor of Medicine at Manchester and later President of non-clinical affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Madeleine Atkins, Chief Executive, HEFCE; Professor Julia Goodfellow, President, Universities UK
    To: Madeleine Atkins, Chief Executive, HEFCE; Professor Julia Goodfellow, President, Universities UK We are university educators who are deeply disturbed by the proposed use of ‘student outcomes’ metrics as proxy measures of teaching quality in HEFCE’s proposed new ‘quality assessment’ regime and the mooted ‘Teaching Excellence Framework’. We call upon HEFCE to reject this use, and upon University UK to withdraw its endorsement of, and campaign vociferously against, the use of ‘student outcomes’ metrics for these purposes. The use of ‘student outcomes’ to measure teaching quality is completely inappropriate for the following reasons. 1. Student attainment is never a direct or reliable measure of teaching quality because it is influenced by a host of factors unconnected to the quality of teaching. Decades of research has shown that the largest single determinant of educational outcomes is social class.1 Yet, in secondary education, the OFSTED inspection regime and much political/ public discourse operates as if ‘good teaching’ is the only important driver, and by extension bad outcomes must be the result of ‘bad teaching’. This is simply inaccurate. Similarly, in Higher Education, student attainment within single academic departments frequently fluctuates considerably year-on-year. This does not necessarily signify fluctuations in teaching quality, which experience suggests remains broadly consistent, but rather cohort effects based on the characteristics of a given student body – not least the students’ own efforts. The same is true for many other metrics, such as student employment and salary data, which are heavily influenced by many non-teaching factors, notably interpersonal networks, which in turn often rest on social class themselves.2 Similar concerns have been raised about the use of NSS data.3 Given the strong social determinants of student outcomes, any metrics system based on them may reflect pre-existing social hierarchies rather than providing any objective measure of ‘teaching quality’.
    [Show full text]
  • Inside Pages
    The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee Annual Report 2010 THE PARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE (An Associate Parliamentary Group including Members of the Associate Parliamentary Engineering Group) Established 1939 The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee is a primary focus for scientific and technological issues providing a long-term liaison between Parliamentarians and scientific and engineering bodies, science-based industry, academia and organisations representing those significantly affected by science. The main aim is to focus on those issues where science and politics meet, informing Members of both Houses of Parliament by indicating the relevance of scientific and technological developments to matters of public interest and to the development of policy. The Committee meets once a month when Parliament is sitting to debate a scientific or engineering topic and its relationship with political issues. These debates take place in the Palace of Westminster, starting at 5.30pm and are usually followed by informal receptions. Attendance is typically 60 –80. Most debates are followed by a working dinner where the informal atmosphere facilitates open and wide-ranging discussion between interested Parliamentarians and those most closely concerned with the evening’s topic. The Committee arranges visits to industrial and scientific establishments. Typically a party of a dozen or so will include two or three Parliamentarians who will thereby have an in-depth introduction to some aspect of the real world of science and technology. Cover photograph Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament. Foreword by the President The Rt Hon the Lord Jenkin of Roding The President’s Foreword to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee Annual Report is an opportunity to reflect upon current issues and future opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fifth Report of Senior Pay and Perks at UK Universities
    Transparency at the top? The fifth report of senior pay and perks in UK universities History This is the fifth report on pay and perks at the top of British higher education institutions (HEIs) to be published by the University and College Union (UCU). It forms part of the union’s ongoing campaign for greater transparency in higher education, including the rationale behind senior pay rises. UCU submitted a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to 158 HEIs in November 2018. This followed similar requests submitted in 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014. All requests were designed to shine a light on the arbitrary nature of senior pay and perks in universities, and support the union’s call for reform. The basis for this report The FoI request that forms the basis of this report was sent to 158 HEIs. It requested details of vice-chancellors’ (or head of institution if known by a different title) salaries and those of other senior post-holders earning over £100,000 at the institution during the academic year of 2017/18 (1 August 2017 to 31 July 2018). It also asked for details spending on flights and hotels, and if the vice- chancellor was provided with accommodation by the university. Finally, we requested to know whether or not the vice-chancellor was a member of the remuneration committee, if they could attend even if not a member and requested a copy of the most recently ratified minutes of the institution’s remuneration committee. Variety of responses The questions on salary, expenditure on flights, hotels and accommodation for vice-chancellors elicited a huge variation in responses with many institutions deploying exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act to avoid providing data.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2009
    The Daphne Jackson Trust Annual Report 2009 1 | The Daphne Jackson Trust Welcome to the... Chair’s Introduction Daphne Jackson Trust Farewell from... Annual Report 2009 Professor Christopher Snowden... Although the economic downturn has affected all sectors across science, engineering and technology, the Daphne Jackson Trust has consistently worked through the challenges presented during 2009. The need for highly qualified and skilled returners has not diminished and so the Trust Contents continues to increase the number of Fellowships awarded. It has also been a year for change and I am pleased to hand over the reins to a new Chair 3 Chair’s Introduction who I am sure will be dedicated to ensuring the growth and success of the Trust. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time as Chair of the Daphne Jackson Trust and would like to 4 Chief Executive’s Summary thank the Trustees and staff for their hard work and dedication during 2009. 5 Overview of the Trust: 2009 8 Our Fellows: 2009 13 Trust Summary: 2009 Professor Christopher Snowden FRS FREng FIEE FIEEE FCGI Chair of the Daphne Jackson Trust 14 Sponsors and Donors 15 Committees & Administration: 2009 Welcome from... Professor Glynis Breakwell It is with great pleasure that I take over as Chair of the Daphne Jackson Trust. Like most charities we faced great challenges in 2009 to retain the existing levels of sponsorship whilst seeking out new sponsors to take the Trust forward. It is my intention to strengthen and expand the Trust to enable it to achieve the standing and status that it so richly deserves, enabling us to help more and more scientists, engineers and technologists.
    [Show full text]
  • Leaders in Higher Education 2013 Womencount
    WomenCount Leaders in Higher Education 2013 A report by Norma Jarboe OBE Sponsored by Published by WomenCount © November 2013, all rights reserved. www.women-count.org Designed and produced by Gilladvertising.com Key Findings Contents Key findings 1 Forewords 2 Introduction 4 1.0 Governance in Higher Education 5 2.0 Women’s leadership: a cross-sector perspective 10 3.0 The Index 14 4.0 Five talking points on the agenda for change 32 5.0 Biographies of female Chairs 35 6.0 Biographies of female Vice Chancellors 40 Key findings • Almost one-fifth of the boards of governing bodies of HEIs in the UK are considered gender- balanced with 40-60% men or women members. These gender-balanced boards can be found in every Mission Group, in all income quartiles and in all but one region. • In the 166 HEIs in the UK, women are 32% of all governing body members. • Women are less well represented as Chairs and Vice Chancellors than as governing body members. Women chair only 12% of all HEIs in the UK and lead only 17% of them as Vice Chancellors. • Women on boards and advancing women executive leaders are issues in the private, public, HE and third sectors. There is much to be gained from understanding how progress is being made across sectors. • Sourcing female board candidates from across sectors expands the talent pool for everyone and provides important leadership development opportunities for executive women. • Umbrella organisations in the HE sector are grappling with and addressing the issues of women’s leadership representation.
    [Show full text]
  • 15 June 2017 Times Higher Education 41 University Vice-Chancellor/Chief Executive Salary 2015-16 (£) Benefits 2015-16 (£) Allo
    discernible relationship between vice- University Vice-chancellor/chief executive Salary Benefits Allowance Total Percentage Pension Percentage Total Key Number of key Percentage chancellor pay and shrinkage of student 2015-16 (£) 2015-16 (£) in lieu of excluding change since 2015-16 (£) change including management management change since numbers in the previous year (see graph, pension pension 2014-15 including pension personnel – staff personnel 2014-15 page 38). contributions 2015-16 (£) pension since 2015-16 (£) costs 2015-16 2015-16 Of course there are myriad reasons why 2014-15 (£’000) student numbers can fall year-on-year. It may University of Aberdeen Sir Ian Diamond 274,000 27,000 301,000 10.7 51,000 11.4 352,000 1,243 Not disclosed −0.1 be a deliberate policy to raise entry standards, Abertay University Nigel Seaton 175,000 175,000 3.6 29,000 4.1 204,000 507 Not disclosed 3.9 or it could be the result of an intrusive 1 construction project that is important for long- Aberystwyth University April McMahon (to 31 Jan 2016) 255,489 32,000 52,000 237,000 17,000 254,000 term growth but that hits student satisfaction John Grattan~* 61,000 14,000 75,000 11,000 86,000 scores and, therefore, subsequent demand in Aberystwyth total 316,489 32,000 66,000 312,000 39.3 28,000 37.1 340,000 1,365 Not disclosed −5.2 the short term. But, on the latter point, the Anglia Ruskin University Michael Thorne (to 29 Feb 2016 ) 194,000 12,000 206,000 206,000 correlation between NSS scores and vice- Iain Martin 97,000 1,000 98,000 16,000 114,000 chancellor pay appears to be stronger, so Anglia Ruskin total 291,000 13,000 304,000 2.7 16,000 8.1 320,000 870 17 14.5 there is some indication that it is feeding into remuneration committees’ thinking (see graph, Arts University Bournemouth Stuart Bartholomew 212,492 5,042 217,534 4.4 4.4 217,534 947 Not disclosed −1.1 page 39).
    [Show full text]
  • Confirmed Minutes the University of Manchester BOARD of GOVERNORS Wednesday, 15 M
    Confirmed minutes The University of Manchester BOARD OF GOVERNORS Wednesday, 15 May 2013 Present: Mr Anil Ruia (in the Chair), President and Vice-Chancellor, Mr Michael Crick, Mr Stephen Dauncey, Professor Colette Fagan, Mr Mark Glass, Professor Andrew Gibson, Dr Reinmar Hager, Mr Robert Hough, Dame Sue Ion, Dr Caroline Jay, Cllr Afzal Khan, Mr Paul Lee, Mr Nick Pringle, Mr Neville Richardson, Dr Brenda Smith, Mr Andrew Spinoza, Dr John Stageman, Professor Pamela Vallely, Dr Andrew Walsh, Mr Gerry Yeung (21) In attendance: The Deputy President and Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar, Secretary and Chief Operating Officer, the Deputy Secretary, the Director of Finance, the General Counsel, the Director of Estates and Facilities and the Head of Compliance and Risk. David Bickerton of Clifford Chance, and Sarah Seed of Mills and Reeve, attended for the discussion of agendum 7. Apologies: Professor Maggie Gale, Mrs Christine Lee-Jones, Professor Chris Taylor, and Dr Andrew Walsh. 1. Declarations of Interest Noted: That the declaration of interest made by the Chair, Mr Anil Ruia, in relation to his role on the HEFCE Board and previously declared in the session, remained relevant to some items on the agenda. 2. Minutes Confirmed: The minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2013, and subject to minor amendment, the minutes of the meeting held at the Planning and Accountability Conference on 20 March 2013. 3. Matters arising from the minutes Received: A report summarising actions consequent on decisions taken by the Board. 4. Summary of business by the Deputy Secretary Received: A report prepared by the Deputy Secretary on the main items of business to be considered at the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • CCLRC Annual Report 2004-05
    CCLRC Annual Report CCLRC Annual Report Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0QX, UK 2004 -2005 Tel: +44 (0)1235 445000 Fax: +44 (0)1235 445808 CCLRC Rutherford Appleton CCLRC Daresbury Laboratory CCLRC Chilbolton Observatory Laboratory Keckwick Lane Drove Road Chilton, Didcot Daresbury, Warrington Chilbolton, Stockbridge Oxfordshire OX11 0QX Cheshire WA4 4AD Hampshire SO20 6BJ UK UK UK 2004 -2005 Tel: +44 (0)1235 445000 Tel: +44 (0)1925 603000 Tel: +44 (0)1264 860391 Fax: +44 (0)1235 445808 Fax: +44 (0)1925 603100 Fax: +44 (0)1264 860142 For further information and advice contact: Publications Editor Communications, CCLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0QX, UK Tel: +44 (0)1235 445398 Fax: +44 (0)1235 446665 www.cclrc.ac.uk Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils The Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils’ objects, as defined in its revised Royal Charter, are: (a) to promote and support high-quality scientific and engineering research by developing and providing, by any means, facilities and technical expertise in support of basic, strategic and applied research programmes funded by persons established in this Our United Kingdom and elsewhere; (b) to support the advancement of knowledge and technology (including the promotion and support of the exploitation of research outcomes), meeting the needs of the Research Councils, other customers and Published by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from: their
    [Show full text]