Acting Secretary: Julie Boyer

eActing Secretary: Julie Boyer

Research, Enterprise and Regional Affairs Office

Woolwich

Tel: 7902 Fax: 8630

Email:

ACADEMIC COUNCIL

RESEARCH AND ENTERPRISE COMMITTEE

DRAFT Minutes for the fifth meeting, in 2007 held on Wednesday 5th December at 2.15 pm in Room 075, Queen Anne, Greenwich Campus

PRESENT:

Professor A Reed (Chair)

Mrs J Boyer (GRE)

Ms J Cullen(GRE)

Dr N Dasgupta (Humanities)

Professor D Isaac (Architecture & Construction)

Dr J Jameson (Education and Training)

Professor L Johnson (Business)

Professor M Snowden (Science)

Mr J Wallace (Administrative Secretary)

Professor L West (Health and Social Care)

Professor A Westby (NRI)

Dr S Woodhead (School of Engineering/RERA)

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE:

Mr D Beazleigh (Finance), Professor C Bailey (CMS), Professor E Galea (CMS), Mr M Hume (GRE), Professor J Humphreys, Professor J Morton (NRI), Mrs L Spencer (RSAO)

ITEMS FROM THE CHAIR

The Chair reported that the proposed updates to the Academic Regulations for Research Awards will be presented to Academic Council on 12thDecember, and the updated version will be made available online.

1.MINUTES OF THE 3rd MEETING OF THE RESEARCH AND ENTERPRISE COMMITTEE HELD IN 2007 ON 10th October 2007

The minutes of the Research and Enterprise Committee held on 10th October 2007 were agreed as an accurate record subject to the following alteration being made:

• ProfMorton was present at the meeting and should therefore be listed as an attendee.

ACTION:Mrs Boyer to amend the minutes accordingly.

2.MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

RESEARCH AND ENTERPRISE COMMITTEE ACTION TABLE

(from minutes dated 10th October 2007)

ITEM NO. / ACTION / RESPONSIBILITY / OUTCOME
4. ARPD (from 5th July minutes)

• ARPD Summary Report 2005-06

ACTION: • Committee members to forward suggestion/comments to Mrs Boyer by 12th July.
ACTION: • Chair to finalise format, for use in session in 2007-08. / All
Prof Reed / Actioned
Actioned
5. Research & Enterprise Programmes Allocations 2007/8 – Arrangements and Procedures (from 5th July minutes)
ACTION: Dr Woodhead discussed funding arrangements with Mr Hume. Mr Hume to action. / Mr Hume / Refer to minute item 3 vi)
8. a) Minutes of the Research Degree Committees (to note) (from 5th July minutes)
The Chair reported that minutes had not been received from AHRDC.
ACTION: Mrs Boyer to check the last confirmed minutes received from AHRDC and liaise with RDC Secretary to bring submission of minutes up-to-date.
d) 2006-2007 Audit of Postgraduate Research Students undertaken by the Research Student Administrative Office (from 5th July minutes)
ACTION: Mrs Boyer to liaise with Mrs Spencer and ask her to approach Prof Humphreys with regard to problems encountered with KSDP being made available on website. / Mrs Boyer
Mrs Boyer / Actioned
Dr Odle (RSAO) advised that this is no longer a problem
MATTERS ARISING NOT ON THE AGENDA
Framework 7
ACTION: • Dr Woodhead to contact Mr Beazleigh for clarification of the Framework 7 overhead position.
• Mrs Boyer to include ‘Framework 7 Overheads’ as an agenda item for the next meeting. / Dr Woodhead
Mrs Boyer / Refer to minute item 3 iv)
Actioned
3. PREPARATIONS FOR RAE 2008 – UPDATE
ACTION: Dr Woodhead to produce a table to provide data on numbers of ARs, numbers of research students and income returned in the RAE2001 and 2008 exercises for the next meeting. / Dr Woodhead / Refer to minute item 3 i)
4. RERA BUSINESS PLANS 2007-2008
- The Chair requested the formation of a sub-group to discuss the issues related to tracking and monitoring research and enterprise income and envisage how the University should be working to alleviate them. Prof Johnson agreed to take this forward with Dr Jameson, Dr Dasgupta and Dr Woodhead.
ACTION: Prof Johnson to form a sub-group.
- The Committee considered the significance of the recommendations in the Sainsbury Review. The Chair asked Ms Cullen to evaluate Sainsbury Review for discussion at the next meeting.
ACTION: • Ms Cullen to evaluate the Sainsbury Review.
• Mrs Boyer to include the Sainsbury Review as an agenda item for next meeting. / Prof Johnson
Ms Cullen / ACTION: Prof Johnson to form sub-group in January 2008
Actioned (Refer to minute item 3 ii))
Actioned
5. HEIF4
ACTION: RERA to form HEIF4 Working Group and convene meeting. / GRE / Refer to minute item 3 iii)
ITEMS FROM SCHOOLS
ACTION: Schools to make use of ‘Items from Schools’ as a vehicle for raising School issues. / All
RESEARCH STUDENTS
6 i)Proposed changes to Academic Regulations for Research Awards
ACTION: • Prof Reed to liaise with Mrs Spencer with regard to his comments on proposed changes.
• Mrs Boyer to inform RSAO that for the time being RDA forms submitted for approval by RDCs can be consistent with either the existing or the proposed new procedure.
• Mrs Boyer to submit to the next meeting of Academic Council, a revised table of proposed changes, taking into account Prof Reed’s comments/ suggestions.
6 ii)Masters by Research – Interactions between Schools and RDCs
ACTION: • Profs Galea and Johnson to forward comments with regard to the process interpreted in the flowchart to Prof Reed.
• Prof Reed to revise draft RDA forms to take account of the Committee’s decision to provide a ‘softer’ approach to Key Skills.
• RSAO to forward the revised RDA forms and flow chart to Heads of School and Directors of Research and Enterprise for information and implementation. / Prof Reed
Mrs Boyer
Mrs Boyer
Profs Galea and Johnson
Prof Reed
Mrs Boyer / Actioned
Actioned
Actioned
Comments received from Prof Johnson
Actioned
Actioned
8.ANY OTHER BUSINESS
8 ii)
ACTION: Prof Galea to prepare a short note for the next meeting to describe the problems encountered when advertising for short-term research staff appointments. / Prof Galea / Refer to minute item 4 i)

3.GREENWICH RESEARCH AND ENTERPRISE

i)RAE 2008

• RAE2008 (oral update)

Dr Woodhead reported that the university’s RAE2008 submission was made to HEFCE on 15th November and was one of the first ten institutions to submit its return.

There will now be a number of follow-up actions including a data verification process whereby a proportion of submissions from each institution will be checked. Data may then be subject to verification at the instigation of the panels at any time throughout 2008, likely to peak between April and August.

• Table – Comparisons RAE2001 and RAE2008

The Committee referred to the paper entitled ‘Overview of the University’s Submission to the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise’. Dr Woodhead informed the Committee that this paper would be presented at Court and Academic Council. The Committee noted the following:

• Points 1-8 in the paper refer to the strategy adopted for RAE2008;
• Table 1 provides data to compare the percentage of ARs submitted from the University of Greenwich (26%) and other institutions;
• Table 2 presents an analysis, by School, of the percentage of ARs submitted. NRI submitted the highest percentage of ARs (c. 70%). It was noted that the five members of staff submitted from the Vice Chancellor’s Office include ARs from GMI;
• Table 3 presents a summary of the quantitative information contained in the final submission, as well as, where available, selected comparative information for RAE2001:
• 181 ARs were submitted in 2008, compared with 231 in RAE2001. The lower number of ARs submitted in 2008 was a result of setting higher criteria levels for eligible ARs;
• 214 doctoral degrees were awarded and £48.5M of eligible income was generated over the assessment period for RAE2008.

The Committee agreed that the information provided in the paper was both interesting and very useful and discussion ensued:

• It was noted that income for the Urban Renaissance Institute had been removed from UoA 30 by Finance. Notwithstanding this, with only two members of A&C staff attracting income, theamount in UoA 30 equates to a respectable figure of almost half a million pounds each, with the potential to expand;
• Dr Jameson reported that 4-5 members of staff in Education and Training had left the university’s employment during the RAE 2008 assessment period because they had been refused Professorships at Greenwich. Dr Jameson expressed concern that quality staff memberssuch as these are not recognised at theUniversityof Greenwich and suggested that this issue is taken on board in the new regime. Although Dr Jameson is sure of a good performance in RAE2008, the UoA45 submission may have been improved if the members of staff concerned hadnot left;
• Professor Westby commented that the information provided was very useful and displays well NRI’sgood performance with PhD completions and income.He added that the proportion of staff submitted from NRI compared with that of other Schools/institutes will be encouraging for NRI staff to see.
• Professor Isaac suggested that, after the RAE results are known, it would be useful to obtainthe percentage of staff submitted in Schools at other institutions to give a composition of research in universities.

• Ongoing RAE process

Dr Woodhead reported that he had recently attended a seminar to discuss the future of research assessment and received information that HEFCE is working to develop new arrangements for quality assessment and funding to be introduced after 2008. He drew to the attention of Committee members that HEFCE has opened a consultation on their proposals for the new ‘Research Excellence Framework (REF)’, to which responses are to be received by 14th February 2008.

The Committee noted that:

• The RAE will be replaced with the REF;
• There will be two assessment processes: (i) Science and Technology and (ii) Humanities and social sciences;
• For science-based disciplines, a new bibliometric indicator of research quality is proposed, based on the extent to which research papers are cited by other publications. This new indicator (to replace outputs and RA5a) will be combined with research income and research student data;
• For Humanities and Social Sciences, there will be a light-touch form of peer review similar to RAE from 2014;
• From 2009/10 80% of the funding received for science and technology will originate from RAE and the remaining 20% from the REF;
• The consultation document suggests that there will be six UoAs, four of which Greenwich will be able to submit to. The average score across all the UoAs will form an overall score.

Prof Reed thanked Dr Woodhead for this update adding that Greenwich would need to start looking at the performance of individuals over a period of time to ascertain which members of staff are submitted to the REF.

Prof Snowden asked if there would be a mechanism for dealing with younger members of staff withloweroutput citations. Dr Woodhead confirmed that a scheme for early career researchers would be adopted in the REF.

Prof Westby reported that it is very straightforward to check citation indexes on the internetand that staff shouldstart to refer to their cache(?) indexes. Prof Reed added that the system isopen to abuse assome papers will rank high in the citation index because they are cited regularly for their poor quality. Prof Westby then emphasised the importance of starting to work towards the REF now in terms of winning money, increasing numbers of postgraduate research students and providing guidance to staff with regard to publishing outputs.

Prof Snowden informed the Committee that the number of PhD students in the School of Science has reduced from 80 to 55, and reported concern in increasing these numbers as the School is not in a position to provide funding. Prof Isaac reported that the School of Architecture and Construction brought new researchers into the School to attract research students. Prof Woodhead was asked if he was aware how important PhD completions would be in the REF and he responded there would be a threshold level.

Dr Jameson welcomed the opportunity to make a response to the REF. Prof West added that intelligence from all disciplines would need to be gathered for the response.

Discussion followed with regard to Greenwich’s position in league tables and the consequences of this. Dr Jameson suggested that the ‘League Table Working Group’ should be reinstated to address Greenwich’s position. The Chair agreed, adding that the matter should be taken up by the new Chair of the Research and Enterprise Committee on his arrival.

The Committee agreed that relevant Directors of Research and Enterprise should convene to formulate a response to the consultation and look at providing general guidance to Greenwich research staff early on.

ACTION: Directors of Research and Enterprise to meet to form a response to the consultation and discuss guidance to provide to the research community.

ii)Sainsbury Review

The Committee referred to the briefing paper entitled ‘CSR Settlement and Sainsbury Review’ prepared by Ms Cullen for Prof Humphreys. Ms Cullen summarised the following main points:

• the CSR supports the government’s long-term vision to make Britain one of the best places in the world for science, research and innovation, with a world-class skills base;
• the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) will lead a strategic programme to boost business innovation and technology development, worth more than £1 billion over the next three years. A key representative from Greenwich will be nominated to liaise with TSB;
• HEIF will rise from £82m pa in 2007-08 to £150m pa by 2010-11 and will be more clearly focussed on business facing universities. Allocation will be formula-based drawing on metrics developed through earlier HEIF/HEBCIS consultations. Greenwich will be looking at performance against the metrics to inform a successful HEIF4 bid in 2008 and review its external collaborations;
• SEEDA is reviewing its operations which may seek cost-savings to the Medway Enterprise Hub. Greenwich should look to strengthen and optimise Hub operations. The Committee discussed SEEDA’s review of operations noting the importance of retaining the Medway Enterprise Hub. The Chair informed the Committee that GRE has been trying to engage more with SEEDA and Mr Wallace suggested that developments are monitored through the Research and Enterprise Committee;
• the number of KTPs will double from 300 – 600 with an increase in FE participation and mini-KTPs will be launched. Greenwich is well placed to take up new KTPs based on past experience and is preparing to respond to mini-KTPs and will continue to work with partner colleges. However, Ms Cullen informed Committee members that the increase in KTPs and FE participation would result in requirement for greater administrative support in GRE for these projects;
• Venture Capital – Ms Cullen reported that she will look at the Emerald Proof of Concept fund.

iii)HEIF4 (extract from Sainsbury Review and oral update)

The Committee referred to the papers on HEIF4. Ms Cullen reported that the briefing from HEFCE is short, succinct and clear and reported the following:

• HEIF4 funding will be allocated entirely on the basis of a formula;
• unclear to date of the exact amount of funding Greenwich will receive (between £1.8 and £4.7m), a clearer picture will be known in January;
• HEIF4 allocations will be announced in March/April2008.

Ms Cullen then informed the Committee that delivery on HEIF3 projects is progressing well and when the exact HEIF4 allocation amount is known she will bring this item back to the Committee.

GREEnterprise update:

Ms Cullen reported:

• to provide a good service, a new Business Manager would need to be recruited to the Business Development team to fill a vacancy as soon as possible. Funding for this position is available until the end of July, but it will be made clear to applicants that further funding will be available after this date;
• there was little turnout at the Costing and Pricing workshop held recently on the Greenwichcampus. A replica workshop will be held in Medway soon;
• workshops for topics such as proposal writing and project management are to be held in the near future. If Committee members are aware of any other topics staff may benefit from they should let Ms Cullen know.

The Committee agreed that issues such as stability of staffing in GRE should be taken up with the new Pro Vice-Chancellor upon his arrival.

iv)Framework 7 Overheads

Dr Woodhead reported that Mr Beazleigh had been invited to attend today’s meeting to clarify the position with the overheads charged centrally for FW7/EU projects, but he had been unable to attend. Dr Woodhead’s understanding of the position is that an 11% overhead will be charged centrally, and that a different view, but without setting a precedent, may be taken by Finance on a project-by-project basis.

v)Disseminating funding opportunities

Ms Cullen reported that Business Development Managers monitor the research and enterprise information disseminated to staff. Relevant information is sent to Directors of Research and Enterprise, and other selective people, then it is understood by GRE that sufficient dissemination of the information takes place within Schools. Ms Cullen asked Committee members if information is being effectively disseminated to the relevant staff members in Schools.

vi)Research & Enterprise Programmes Allocations 2007/8 (GRE)

The Committee referred to two tables relating to this item:

• Table one provides an indication of the Research and Enterprise funding allocated to Schools for 2007-08. The Chair reported that this is a mirror of the previous years’ allocations with an intentionalroll-on for reasons of stability. Committee members requested information with regard to the rationale behind the allocation amounts and it was confirmed that the decisions for funding allocations were made by Prof Humphreys and Mr Hume as a result of discussions with Heads of School and Directors of Research and Enterprise in 2006;
• the second table provides information with regard to the November call for additional Research and Enterprise funding. It was noted from the table that no funding has been allocated to Health and Social Care. Having been involved in the allocation of these additional funds, Ms Cullen reported that her understanding of the position is that all Schools have been allocated funding and she will look into this matter. She added that all applicants will receive feedback on their proposals, and those who have been unsuccessful can request feedback from the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Enterprise. Ms Cullen apologised to members for the partial information received in the table at this meeting.

ACTION: Ms Cullen to clarify the position with regard to the additional Research and Enterprise funding for Health and Social Care.