Agenda Item 6, AB/5/12/C1

Academic Board: 13 June 2012

Agenda Item 6, AB/5/12/C1

The University of Chichester

Research Committee

Minutes: 15 May2012

Present:

Prof Clive Behagg (CB) - Chair / Dr Vini Lander (VL) (from 14.30)
Dr Shirley Chubb (SC) / Dr David Muggleton (DM)
Dr David Cooper (DC) / Dr Ben Noys (BN)
Dr Andy Dixon (AD) / Ms Anna O’Neil (AON)
Dr Sarah Gilroy (SG) / Dr Duncan Salkeld (DS)
Ms Elizabeth Holmes (EH) / Dr Mark Willems (MW)

In attendance: Dr Antony Walsh (AW) (clerk)

Section A

All items were noted by the Committee (1-4).

Section B

1. Apologies for absence

Apologies were accepted from Dr Pete Bunyan. Dr Iain Greenlees was also absent.

1. Minutes of previous meeting

The minutes from the meeting of 2 February were accepted.

1. Matters Arising

3.1Verbal update from Anna O’Neill, Head of Library Services on EPrints and EThOS

AON stated that configuration of the University’s EPrints repository has been completed and the process of uploading data from the RAE in 2008 had begun.

The University had recently subscribed to the British Library’sEThOS (Electronic Theses Online Service) which contained records of over 250,000 theses of which a large number were available for download. The Library was working with REEO to add University of Chichester theses to the service. DS stated that electronic journals published by Oxford and Cambridge universities were not available through the University library service and asked whether this could be addressed. AON explained that whilst in most university libraries large ‘packages’ of journal titles were bought and made available, the scale ofChichester’s requirements for journal access rendered the individual purchase of individual journals more cost effective. AON invited staff to make any requests for new titles through the usual channels with the support of the relevant departmental cost centre budget holder.

3.2To note that 2 vacancies for elected members on the Research Committee will become available for the 12/13 academic year as members complete their term of office.

AW stated that two elected positions up for re-election. It was queried whether the positions were elected from the staff as a whole or from the body of Readers and Professors and that if it were the latter then the current round of academic promotions should be taken into consideration. CB requested that the situation be confirmed.

Action AD

3.3Progress on the matters arising from the previous meeting and any matters arising not covered by the current agenda

Progress against actions was reported. It was agreed that item 11.2 (University Sabbatical Policy to be remitted to Executive Dean’s Team for further consideration) should remain until the Sabbatical Policy had been reviewed by the Research Committee again.

4Postgraduate Research (PGR) Student Matters

4.1 Mid-year report on student recruitment and progression

AD stated that the report showed that numbers of registered research students had remained stable in 11/12 despite the delay to recruitment to bursaries agreed for 11/12. At the census point in October 2011, the cohort was the same size as the previous year – 58. Signs for growth in future registrations remained good and forthcoming possible changes to the MPhil Probationer scheme could also help with overseas recruitment. BN asked whether the Committee could have information on increases to the marketing budget for the purpose of promoting postgraduate research opportunities. AD agreed to bring this to the next meeting.

Action AD

SG asked whether it would be possible to compare these figures with bench-mark HEIs. Discussion ensued about the MPhil Probationer scheme and its effectiveness for recruitment of MPhil/ PhD students. It was suggested that a paper be prepared that reviewed the destinations of Chichester students who progressed to PG studies (both taught and research). It was agreed that the paper would take a synoptic view of student recruitment that took into account the pattern and nature of recruitment including the MPhil Probationer programme, student progress and destination following completion..

Action AD

4.2 Mid –year report on the Travel and Conference Fund

AD observed that the PGR Travel and Conference Fund continued to be both popular and effective in helping research students with their academic development. At present he could not state whether all the current allocation will be used within the academic year but he suspected that any surplus from the fund would be small. It was noted that the forthcoming addition of the Psychology postgraduate research area would have an effect on the overall distribution of funds. The situation would be monitored and a report on this activity for 11/12 as a whole would come to Research Committee in due course.

4.3Other PGR matters

JG expressed concerns within the postgraduate community, notably from Sports Psychology students that there were difficulties in accessing key electronic journals. AON welcomed making contact with students to understand the nature of their concerns. MW suggested that in many cases, contacting the first named author of a paper could be very fruitful in obtaining articles that might otherwise only be available through interlibrary loan.

Students working in South House had also had concerns at the noise that could result from planned building work in the area surrounding SARC. It was agreed that students should be kept fully informed of the plans as they developed and likewise that Estates colleagues were advised as to the proximity of the PhD student offices to the site of the proposed building. Options to minimise disruption would be explored nearer the time e.g. temporarily relocating students to offices on the North side of the building.

EH noted that a social gathering of PGRs held just before Easter had been well supported.

1. University of Southampton ERDC

5.1 Verbal report on the ERDC discussion of the Postgraduate Research Enhancement Reviewand Action Plan 2010-11 (PRERAP)

AD stated that this year’s PRERAP had been well received by colleagues at the University of Southampton who congratulated the University on another impressive and thorough document. Advice was provided on achieving balance between the description of provision for students and approaches to review and implement enhancements. The ERDC’s responses gave further evidence of Southampton University’s support for Chichester’s forthcoming RDAP application. The Chair welcomed this very important support.

1. UniversityResearch strategy

6.1Action Plan for implementing the Research Strategy

AD provided the wider context to the Action Plan that had emerged from the previous Committee meeting’s decision to act as a working group to advance the University Research Strategy. AD recommended that the committee should focus on one strand of the strategy in this meeting (2 – Culture) and to pick up other strands at subsequent meetings. AD outlined the plan for each Department to organise and hold regular research seminars or events. It was agreed that there should be flexibility to allow collaboration between departments if appropriate. Discussion ensued on the nature of support available from Marketing colleagues to promote research events. In many instances it was felt that regular events were being organised but difficulties remained in publicising them and ensuring sufficient attendance. The Chair recognised that through conflicting demands on the Marketing Department it would not be possible for all events to receive equal support. However, the use of templates for posters might overcome this. AC noted that attendance at George Bell Institute research events had been improved through carefully nurtured relationships with key local civic partners. Other committee members considered that it would be helpful if departments allocated ‘protected’ timetable slots for weekly research events so that all department members (staff and students) could attend regularly. In all cases, forward planning was vital. The Chair agreed that the implementation of the Research Strategy should be maintained as a standing item on future Research Committee agendas identifying particular sections to be discussed. DC requested that advance notice be provided of the areas of the Research Strategy to be considered to allow members sufficient time to prepare.

Action AD

6.2 Progress towards RDAP. Summary of the Audit of Research Activity for 10/11 (extracted from the annual report to Governors) and verbal update on plan for RDAP submission and scrutiny

The Chair highlighted the excellent participation rate(96 pc ) from staff in the most recent Audit of Research activity. The audit gave a strong indication that the numerical criteria to make the initial a priori case for RDAP were exceeded. Building on these results, a detailed and robust evidence base would be required that will undergosignificant scrutiny from an RDAP panel.

AD outlined the stages that the RDAP application would follow over a six to seven month period following receipt of the final QAA Institutional Review report in June this year. Completion of the stages to the published timescales would be challenging but not unreasonable. Discussion took place as to whether the possibility of overlapping the RDAP application and the REF submission could place to great a strain on the institution. It was alternatively suggested that seeing a synergy between the two activities could be beneficial for planning purposes. The Chair conceded that the danger of administrative ‘overload’ occurring would have to be monitored closely.

6.3 Investment in Research: discussion of proposed framework

The Director of Research presented two papers (previously reviewed by ChET) discussing investment in research activity at the University. In the first, a research framework was set out identifying two categories of investment – funds for activities and support at a general University level and those intended to support research carried out at an individual and academic Department level. In a second paper, a twin-track approach to research investment was set out that would see about 75 pc of the allocation of funds being made on a devolved basis to departments able to give evidence of significant internationally excellent research (over 3 years it would include PGR student bursaries, support for research groups and possible sabbaticals), The remaining 25 pc of funding would be allocated via a centrally managed Annual Research Facilitation Fund (similar to the current RFF). Departments successful in obtaining devolved funding would need to provide annual evidence that activities were occurring in line with their overall research plan. The plan would give greater autonomy to departments in planning research activity and facilitate research activity over a wider timescale.

Concerns were expressed that the introduction of the twin-track investment approach would be unhelpful for departments aspiring to develop a significant research culture in the future. Under the proposed arrangements, it was felt unclear as to how a department might be able to raise its profile and consequently access devolved funding. In the opinion of some members of the Committee, the dual funding approach contradicted theinclusive definition of research that underpinned the University Research Strategy. Departments with strong consultancy traditions, for example, would not seemingly gain recognition for their contribution to the University’s wider research agenda. The Chair drew the Committee’s attention to the benchmark data that showed that the institution’s external research funding was low compared to other HEIs of a similar size. The importance of the sustainability of research and the capture of external funding could not be overlooked.

The Chair thanked the Committee for the constructive discussion and requested that ChET review the proposals again and consider a revised model of investment in research more in keeping with the view of the Committee. This model should be appropriate to support sustained research of an international quality in the context of an inclusive concept of research and with sufficient flexibility to support research projects with budgets of a duration greater than one year. The Director of Research will prepare a revised model for resubmission to the Research Committee.

(BN left at this point – 16.15)

1. Outcome of the recent QAA institutional review

The Chair explained that the positive outcome of the QAA institutional review left the University well placed to start preparations for the RDAP application. The University had been particularly commended for the MPhil Probationer scheme and the quality of support provided to students.

1. Researcher Development at the University of Chichester

8.1Researcher Development Statement and Framework and proposal for adoption at the University

AD explained that the Researcher Development Framework (RDF) was a University-sector wide standard tool for career development that could be used by nearly all staff. Working with HR, it was planned to pilot its use in the next academic year with an ultimate objective that the RDF be used widely for staff PRDPs and research student PDPs. For the initiative to be successful it was important that the University introduce an approach that is seen to be relevant and accessibleto the majority of academic staff.

(SG left at this point – 16.25)

8.2Verbal update on progress of the current round of Academic Promotions for research roles

The Chair explained that numerous applications for Academic Promotions for research roles had been received and were being reviewed in line with the published process. Feedback would be provided to each applicant personally by the end of June.

Action CB

9. Research Conference

9.1Update on the coordination of the upcoming Research Conference

Proposals for seven presentations had been received to date. The Chair strongly urged members of the Committee to invite their colleagues to proposals for papers and poster presentations.

Action all

10. Equality and Diversity

No issues relating to Equality and Diversity were raised.

11. Date of future meetings

The Committee noted that the next meeting will take place on 4 July 2012.

Draft:17.05.12

Approved by Chair:21.06.12

DISTRIBUTION

Members:Prof Clive Behagg (Chair);Dr Pete Bunyan, Dr Andrew Chandler, Dr Shirley Chubb, Dr David Cooper, Dr Andy Dixon, Dr Suzie Everley; Sarah Gilroy;Iain Greenlees; Dr David Mu ggleton; Dr Ben Noys; Ms Anna O’Neill; Dr Mark Willems;

Student Representatives: Ms Elizabeth Holmes; Mr James Gavin

Others:Ms Helen Aspell

Cc:Ms Isabel Cherrett; Ms Nicola Nathan; Ms Debbie Shattock

Page 1 of 5