University of Hertfordshire s2
UNIVERSITY OF HERTFORDSHIRE
RESEARCH COMMITTEE
Minutes of the meeting of the Research Committee held on Thursday 27 May 2010.
PRESENT: Professor J M Senior (Chairman)Dr S Adams
Professor A Baydoun
Professor E Brinks
Professor B Christianson
Dr H Dagdeviren
Dr J E C Dickerson / Dr D J Done
Professor G H Galbraith
Dr S Grey
Professor J Hough
Professor W B Hunt
Professor P H Kaye / Professor S A Kendall
Professor J Lippitt
Professor K J Pine
Dr K Randle
Mr C Salge
Mr W Sturman
IN ATTENDANCE:
Mr P A Findlay (Item 6)
Ms E Hubbard / Mr M Kesvani / Mrs E A Nolan (Clerk)
APOLOGIES:
Mrs H Bennett
Mrs L Caras
Dr A H Clutterbuck / Professor L Floridi
Mr T J Longden / Ms A M Martyn
Mrs A Sheehan-Evett
ACTION
404 MEMBERSHIP
Noted: the current membership (Agenda Paper 2, refers).
405 MINUTES – 25 February 2010
Confirmed and signed: the minutes of 25 February 2010 (Agenda Paper 3, refers).
406 MATTERS ARISING
Noted: there were no matters arising from the minutes not taken elsewhere on the agenda.
407 RESEARCH POLICY AND STRATEGY
407.1 University Quality Related (QR) Funding
407.1.1 Received: an oral report from the Chair on the University’s QR Funding allocation, and the associated research delivery planning.
407.1.2 Noted:
i the University’s QR funding allocation was based on the quality profile of each Unit of Assessment submitted to the Research Assessment Exercise. The OVC Advisory Group (Research) had decided to allocate the funding for 2010/2011 to the relevant Strategic Business Units (SBUs), with 20% retained as an investment fund for strategic research development, following the same process as for 2009/2010;
ii HEFCE had made some adjustments to the QR funding allocations, with increased weightings for research activity rated 4*, and an enhanced grant for geography and psychology. As a result, some areas had seen small increases in their funding allocation and other areas small decreases. However, the University had decided that it would not implement any decreases in 2010/2011, so a small amount had been taken from the 20% retained as an investment fund to avoid any decreases;
iii the University could not guarantee that there would be no reductions in QR funding allocations in 2011/2012, particularly in light of the change of Government;
iv the investment fund for strategic research development was paying for the Centre for Sustainable Communities, and for a portion of the time of the Heads of the Research Institutes; the OVC Advisory Group (Research) would make recommendations at the next meeting of the Research Committee on
21 October 2010 regarding the dispersal of the balance;
v there was a specific requirement for Heads of School to utilise their QR funding allocations to promulgate research against their research delivery plans, and the OVC Advisory Group (Research) would monitor this carefully during 2010/2011.
407.2 University Research Strategy (Minutes 356.3 and 381.1 refer)
407.2.1 Received:
i a draft of the content of the new Research Strategy (Agenda Paper 5.2, refers);
ii an oral report from the Chair on progress with the new Research Strategy.
407.2.2 Noted:
i there had been some modifications to the section headings. Research Culture had been brought together with Research Environment, and Research Impact with Exploitation and Dissemination, resulting in four main sections instead of the original six;
ii Section 4 had a challenging key aspiration to double the number of postgraduate research degree registrations by 2015. The increase would not be spread evenly across all disciplines; indeed much of the growth would be aimed at less well established areas;
iii it was hoped that there would be an increase in University funded studentships, but it was up to each area to decide how much funding to commit to these. Studentships would help to increase numbers of research students, and would also aid the drive for quality;
iv suggestions for further consideration included the following:
a the introduction could include a statement about the importance of excellent research to the standing of the University and could explicitly mention the sustainability of research;
b there could be an internal preamble, clarifying the internal funding arrangements for research, and emphasizing the importance of engaging in research;
c a short paragraph at the beginning of each section could be included, setting the scene and context;
d Point 1.1 stated that research would be carried out “in a spirit of integrity” but this might be better expressed as “with integrity”;
e in Section 2, ‘International Activity’, the importance of national research collaborations could be made more explicit. The term “international profile” rather than “international activity” could be used to emphasize standing and reputation. International collaboration could be defined more clearly as “collaboration with international leaders”. Rather than specifying regions, the wording could be amended to “further substantive global links”;
f Point 2.3 referred to publishing in “world leading journals”; this could be changed to “high impact journals”;
g the key aspiration at the end of Section 3 mentioned impact within the Research Excellence Framework (REF), but there could be significant changes to REF;
h Section 4, ‘Postgraduate Research Students’, could include more about developing the next generation of researchers, and make more reference to research informed teaching;
i Point 4.1 should make it clear that the target to increase research students included research masters and professional doctorate registrations. It should also state that the University wished to enhance output and quality, and a quality marker could be included;
j adequate supervisory capacity would need to be ensured through the appointment of suitably qualified staff, to ensure sufficient supervision was in place across all disciplines to plan for the increased numbers of research students;
k the Committee’s endorsement of the current approach of the draft Strategy, the final version of which would require approval by both the Academic Board and the Board of Governors.
407.2.3 Agreed: the Research Strategy Working Group would consider the amendments suggested by the Committee. Suggestions from staff in the Research Institutes were also welcome. The draft should be circulated widely, and further suggestions for amendment should be sent to Ms E Hubbard, Research Project Officer. HORIs
407.3 Research Centres
407.3.1 Shortened Research Centre Approval Form
407.3.2 Considered: a shortened Research Centre approval form for the designation of existing Research Centres, prepared by Professor P Kaye, Head of the Science and Technology Research Institute (Agenda Paper 5.3.1, refers).
407.3.3 Noted: the form was intended for use by Research Centres which had been in existence prior to the introduction of an official approval process in 2007/2008 and for which no substantive changes were planned.
407.3.4 Agreed:
i the form was approved for use with immediate effect;
ii all existing Research Centres should undergo the approval process by the summer of 2011 and the new form would be circulated to existing Centres before the next meeting on 21 October 2010. EAN
407.4 Clinical Trials Coordinating Centre
407.4.1 Received: an oral report from Professor B Hunt, Director of the Health and Human Sciences Research Institute, on the proposed closure of the University’s Clinical Trials Coordinating Centre.
407.4.2 Noted:
i the Clinical Trials Coordinating Centre had been set up as a commercial unit to provide an advisory service to clinicians and local pharmaceutical companies;
ii the Centre was unable to continue as a commercial unit, partly because it had found it extremely difficult to secure official recognition;
iii the Centre was involved in one clinical trial, which would continue, and the University would continue to be involved in clinical research trials in collaboration with other units.
407.5 Research Misconduct (UPR RE02)
Noted: disciplinary procedures had been invoked twice during the current academic year in accordance with UPR RE02.
407.6 Research Governance Framework: NHS Sponsorship (Minutes 308.4 and 381.4 refer)
Noted: Dr D Trivedi, Research Fellow, Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care, had assumed responsibility as Co-ordinating Investigator for the ED Clinical Trials Project following the retirement of Dr M Vickers from the University. Professor M Kirby was continuing as Chief Investigator.
407.7 Seventh EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7) (Minutes 356.10 and 381.7 refer)
407.7.1 Received:
i a report from Mrs A Sheehan-Evett, European Research Coordinator, on FP7 and other developments regarding EU research (Agenda Paper 5.6, refers);
ii an oral report from Mrs E A Nolan, Research Grants Coordinator, on FP7 and EU research.
407.7.2 Noted:
i the European Commission Information day scheduled for 8 June 2010 in Brussels was already full;
ii a Working Group, consisting of Mrs Sheehan-Evett, Mr M Rosier, Associate Dean, Business School, and Mr P A Findlay, Development Director, Knowledge Transfer, was meeting on 23 June 2010 to consider issues related to European funding; a full report would be made at the next meeting of the Research Committee on 21 October 2010.
408 HOUSE OF COMMONS SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE REPORT
408.1 Received:
408.1.1 the conclusions and recommendations of the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee entitled “The impact of spending cuts on science and scientific research” published in March 2010 (Agenda Paper 6, refers);
408.1.2 a summary of the Dyson Report, Hauser Report, and House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Report (Tabled Paper 6 – Addition, refers);
408.1.3 an oral report from Mr Findlay regarding the science research impact agenda in light of the UK’s current economic and political climate.
408.2 Noted:
408.2.1 in addition to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, the Dyson and Hauser reports had also been published recently;
408.2.2 a theme common to all three reports was an emphasis on sharing resources between groups for Universities for research translation and exploitation, which would promote efficiency;
408.2.3 it was possible there would be opportunities to bid for funding to create Centres of Excellence, although it was likely there would only be one Centre in the Eastern region;
408.2.4 the University might be able to take a lead in the region, as it had a good record in achieving impact.
409 RESEARCH EXCELLENCE FRAMEWORK (REF) (Minutes 358 and 382 refer)
409.1 Received: the outcomes of the recent consultation on the Research Excellence Framework (Agenda Paper 7, refers).
409.2 Noted:
409.2.1 the new coalition Government had not yet declared their perspective on the plans for REF;
409.2.2 feedback from the HEFCE pilot study on impact was due shortly;
409.2.3 the timescale for REF was not mentioned in the consultation document, but the earliest effect on QR funding was likely to be in 2015.
410 RESEARCH COUNCILS UK (RCUK) SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT (Minutes 359 and 384 refer)
Noted: the impact of two of the University’s research projects had been highlighted recently in the RCUK publication ‘Impacts: Achieving Investment in UK Research through Partnership’. The projects had been led by Professor T Hitchcock from the Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities Research Institute, and Professor Kaye.
411 RESEARCH COUNCILS UK (RCUK) CONCORDAT FOR RESEARCHERS
Noted:
411.1 the University had held a launch event for the Concordat for Researchers on
28 April 2010, attended by more than 70 members of staff;
411.2 a copy of the Concordat, the University’s Concordat action plan, and the University’s brochure, ‘Valuing Research Staff’, would be made available on the University’s web pages. RD
412 RCUK POLICY AND CODE OF CONDUCT ON THE GOVERNANCE OF GOOD RESEARCH CONDUCT (Minutes 361 and 386 refer)
Noted:
412.1 the Ethics and Research Integrity Working Group, set up by the Chair, had met on
23 March 2010 to consider the Code and its potential implications for the University and the recently revised ‘Framework for Ethics’ issued by the Economic and Social Research Council in January 2010;
412.2 the Ethics and Research Integrity Working Group would send a paper summarising the main issues to the OVC Advisory Group (Research) for consideration.
413 RESEARCH DEGREES
413.1 Research Degrees Process Review
413.1.1 Received: an oral report from Dr S Grey, Director of Research Degrees, on the decisions reached by the Research Degrees Process Review, as noted at the meeting of the Research Degrees Board on 18 March 2010, Item 463 (Agenda Paper 11.1, refers).
413.1.2 Noted:
i the Research Degrees Process Review had resulted in recommendations for some significant changes which had been welcomed and supported by the Chief Executive’s Group (CEG):
a enrolment would generally take place twice a year, in September and February, followed by induction, with some flexibility for professional doctorates;
b there would be simultaneous registration and assessment at 9 months, although if the precise nature of the degree programme was known at enrolment this could be detailed, and the supervisory team named;
c there would be no direct report to the Research Degrees Board at the second progression; second progression would be dealt with by the Research Institutes;
d the Chairs of the current Institute Research Degree Boards would be appointed as Heads of Research Degrees to make decisions about research degree students in conjunction with Heads of School and local research degree officers, and the IRDBs would be abolished;
e the new processes would commence in September 2010 and would apply for new students; a mechanism for monitoring and reviewing the changes during the first year would be agreed shortly.
ii the process continue to align with the requirements of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA);
iii the changes would improve the problem of students withdrawing after 12 months, which had a negative impact on statistics;
iv there would be a large reduction in the number of meetings each year, and the associated administration;
v there would be a working pool of assessors to deal with progression;
vi the changes were designed to strengthen the admissions process, ensure greater consistency in approach and would result in swifter responses to students, thereby enhancing the student experience.
413.2 RCUK Statement of Expectations regarding Researcher Development
Received and noted:
413.2.1 the RCUK Statement of Expectations regarding Researcher Development, and the transition arrangements for embedding researcher development monies into grants, as the Roberts funding would no longer be ring-fenced (Agenda Paper 11.2.1, refers);