Secretary: Dr L Boon

Secretary: Dr L Boon

Research, Enterprise and Regional Affairs Unit

Woolwich

Tel: 7902 Fax: 8630

email:

ACADEMIC COUNCIL

RESEARCH AND ENTERPRISECOMMITTEE

Minutes of thefirstmeeting held in 2005 on Monday 5thSeptember2005 at 2.00p.m. in Room 210, Queen Anne, Maritime Greenwich

Present:Professor John Humphreys (Chair)

Dr L Boon (Secretary)

Dr L Ambridge

Dr J Dunne

Professor P Harvey

Mr M Hume

Dr J Jameson

Dr A Ruston

Professor A Westby

Professor J Morton

In attendance:Professor K Parrott, Professor J McDonnell, Mrs A Guyatt

The Chair welcomed Mr Hume, the new Director of RERA, to the Committee and those members who had not been members of the Research Committee, Prof Harvey and Dr Ambridge.

05/1.1APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Professor C Mackie, Professor M Snowden, Professor E Galea, Dr S Woodhead, Professor A Reed,Professor D Isaac,Dr Z Sevic, Dr M Sharp,Mrs L Spencer

05/1.2MINUTES OF THE 3rdand 4th MEETING OF THE RESEARCH COMMITTEE HELD IN 2005 ON 15th JUNE and 21st JULY RESPECTIVELY

The Minutes of the 3rd and 4th Meeting held in 2005 on 15th June and 21st July respectively were approved.

05/1.3MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

1.3.1Minute 05/2.4 Devolved Research Degrees Committees: Secretary to arrange an extra meeting of the Research Committee in JulyThe extra meeting took place on 21st July 2005.

1.3.2Minute 05/2.4 Devolved Research Degrees Committees: Directors of Research to coordinate the development of their Schools’Devolved Research Degrees Committee proposals.

TheSecretary reported that all Devolved Research Degrees Committeeshad submitted their membership to the Research Committee for approval on 21st July 2005.

1.3.3Minute 05/2.8.1 RAE2008: Directors of Research to suggest external panel members for the Units of Assessment relevant to their School.

Minute1.6.3 refers.

1.3.4Minute 05/2.8.1 RAE2008: Secretary to modify timetable for the external assessment process.

On request from the Committee, the Secretary had extended the period for preparing the evidence for the external assessors by a month to include the whole of September.

1.3.5Minute 05/2.10 University Postgraduate Annual Research Conference:Dr Woodhead to draft a proposal for a University wide postgraduate conference for the academic year 2005-06.

Dr Woodhead had informed the Secretary that he will present a proposal at the next Research and Enterprise Committee meeting on 31st October.

1.3.6Minute 05/3.6 Draft Strategy for Embedding fEC Knowledge within the Academic Research Community: Secretary to liaise with Finance re a statement about the University’s position on the extra income derived from fEC.

Minute 1.5 refers

1.3.6Minute 05/3.6 Draft Strategy for Embedding fEC Knowledge within the Academic Research Community:Secretary to investigate how the University’s Indirect and Estate Costs compare with those of its peer group.

The Committee was presented with a table in which the University’s rates for Estates Costs and Indirect Costs were compared with those of its peer group, Group C. For fEC purposes, HEIs were divided into peer groups according to their level of research income. It showed that the University’s rates for Estates Costs were slightly above the average for Group C, while for Indirect Costs, the rate was slightly below the average. Mrs Guyatt explained that the rates listed in the table had recently been indexed twice using the GDP deflator, as the rates in the table were based on figures obtained in 2003-04. Because HEIs were allowed to use their own index, it is currently unclear how the University’s rates compares with those of its peers.

1.3.8Minute 05/3.7 Academic Regulations for Research Awards.

Minute 1.3.11 refers.

1.3.9Minutes 05/3.12 AOB: List of PhD students not registered with the University in 2004-05, but registered in 2003-04: Directors of Research to confirm with Mrs Spencer that their Schools’ PhD students named on the list were receiving supervision.

Because of Mrs Spencer’s absence this action was deferred to the next Research and Enterprise Committee meeting.

1.3.10Minute 05/4.3 Membership and Configuration of the Devolved Research Degrees Committees: Secretary to send each DRDC the Terms of Reference of the Devolved Research Degrees Committeeincluding their title, Membership and additional terms of reference: Secretary reported that all DRDCs had received the Terms of Reference of the Devolved Research Degrees Committee including their title, Membership and additional terms of reference. The Humanities Director of Research requested the Committee to approve an amended membership of the joint CMS and Humanities Research Degrees Committee. This referred to:

• Extending the Membership to include 3 senior researchers from Humanities instead of 2, thereby having equal numbers of senior researchers from both Schools
• Modifying the statement relating to the Chair, whereby the Director of Research or Postgraduate Tutor (as determined by the relevant Head of School) of one of the two Schools will chair for one year, to be followed by the Director of Research or Postgraduate Tutor of the other School in the next year. The position of Vice-Chair will filled by the Director of Research or Postgraduate Tutor of the School not holding the Chair.

The Committee approved these amendments.

1.3.11Minute 05/4.4Academic Regulations for Research Awards: Mrs Spencer to implement the changes suggested by the Committee:Because of Mrs Spencer’s absence this action was deferred to the next Research and Enterprise Committee meeting.

1.3.12Minute05/4.5UoG response to the QAA audit re the provision of skills training for research students involved in teaching or demonstrating activities, together with a mechanism for subsequent monitoring and support: Mrs Spencer to contact Mr Behn about the programme of the one day teaching induction and liaise with the Learning and Quality Committee.

The Secretary tabled the information Mrs Spencer had collected together:

1. The programme of the one day teaching induction organised by Mr Behn
2. The names of the research students who participated in the training last year.
3. The responses from individual Schools on:

• Monitoring of research students undertaking teaching and demonstrations in class.
• How the monitoring was undertaken.
• How students were supported when undertaking teaching and demonstrations, is feedback given if observed teaching.

Mrs Spencer would give this information to Mr Naylor of the Learning and Quality unit, who will formulate a response for the University.

ACTION:Mrs Spencer to forward a copy of the University’s response to the Committee

1.3.13Minute 05/4.6 AOB: Concerns expressed by the CMS Director of Research re fEC: Secretary to contact the Chair requesting him to respond.

Minute 1.5 refers.

1.3.14Minute 05/4.6 AOB: Concerns expressed by the CMS Director of Research re fEC: Directors of Research to express their views to the Chair copying the Secretary into their emails.

Secretary reported that no views had been received.

1.3.15Minute 05/4.6 AOB: Registration of PhD students online for 2005-06: Mrs Spencer to send the names of PhD students who have not replied to her message to the relevant Directors of Research. And Directors of Research to follow this up.

Because of Mrs Spencer’s absence this action was deferred to the next Research and Enterprise Committee meeting.

05/1.4RESEARCH AND ENTERPRISE PROGRAMMES

The Chair informed the Committee that the draft paper Implementation of New Research Strategy: Allocation of Funds for 05/06 would go to the next meeting of the Vice-Chancellor’s Group. The Chair had visited most Schools to discuss the allocation and would visit the other Schools within the next few weeks. The funding would shortly be distributed, however, where funding had been earmarked rather than finally allocated, resolution of outstanding issues would be completed by the end of September. Where Research Capability Funding was concerned, the University had made a commitment to allocate this funding to those groups whose research falls within the remit of the relevant Units of Assessment.Thereby not restricting it to those members of staff, who were mentioned in the Research Capability Strategies submitted in June 2003 to HEFCE.

The Committee was then asked to comment on the recommended allocation andthe allocation process, while reserving specific concerns about the allocation to their Schools, for the continuing dialogue between their School and the Chair. The Committee raised the following points re the process:

• Directors of Research should be allowed to present their School’s research strategy to the allocation panel so the panel can judge the relevant applications in that context.
• It had not been made sufficiently clear in the bid document that Research and Enterprise Programmes should also bid for the Research Capability money. Therefore, the School of Science’s Research & Enterprise Programmes had not initially developed applications for Research Capability funding.
• Hub Directors did not realise that they were allowed to bid as a Hub for the HEIF2 underspend. And it was felt that it had not been made sufficiently clear that any underspend could not be carried forward to 2005-06.

The Chair added to the last point, that as the HEIF2 underspend was mainly due to unpaid salaries, it was judged to be inappropriate for the funds to be kept in the Hubs. Especially as the University had had to report theunderspend to HEFCE and also how it intended to spend it. At this stage it was still unclear whether the University would be allowed to keep this underspend.

The Committee requested some information on how the allocation of funds for 2006-07 would take place. The Chair replied that a similar exercise would be carried out for next academic year, while aiming to reduce the RAE funding top slice from the 25% taken by the Centre this year, guarantee a sustained and enlarged Strategic Research Fund component, and refine the current process of allocation of RAE and Research Capability funding.The Chair recommended reading the Strategy for Sustainable Research when reflecting on how to approach the round next year.

05/1.5FULL ECONOMIC COSTING

The Secretary presented the paper on Full Economic Costing, which explained the difference between the conventional Additional Cost model and the new Full Economic Cost model. From 1 September 2005, all research proposals submitted to the Research Councils and Government Departments will have to be costed under this new model. The paper also informed the Committee how the University is going to distribute the grant income derived from fEC proposals between the Centre and the Schools: 11% of the grant will be diverted to the Centre, the remainder will go to the relevant School.

The Secretary raised two issues:

• The University has been awarded £119k by the Research Councils to assist the University in the transitional period before all RC projects undertaken by HEIs are fEC funded. How should this funding be deployed keeping in mind that it cannot be used to set-up new research projects.

• How will fEC affect the pricing of research and consultancy for other organisations?

On the first issue, the Committee agreed for a proposal to be drafted by the Secretary and Finance and presented at the next Research and Enterprise Committee meeting.

The Committee proposed to address the second issue when the University has recalculated its Estates Costs and Indirect Costs for the next TRAC return. At that stage the University will be better able to judge its competitive position.

Professor Westby raised the issue that there might be serious implications for NRI if DfiD requires NRI to cost its proposals under fEC, instead of the cost model that NRI currently employs, especially if this results in having to cost lower.

ACTION: Secretary to work with Finance on a proposal for employing the transitional fund

ACTION:Secretary to send the fEC briefing paper to the Directors of Research for them to circulate amongst their staff

ACTION:Professor Westby and Mrs Guyatt to investigate how fEC would affect NRI’s position and present an oral report at the next meeting

05/1.6RAE2008

1.6.1RAE 2008 Consultation on Assessment Panels' Draft Criteria and Working Methods

Secretary reported that the RAE2008 team is currently inviting comments on the assessment panels' draft criteria and working methods. The deadline for submitting responses is 12.00 on Monday 19 September 2005. Directors of Research had been requested to send their comments on the draft criteria and working methods of the sub and main panels relevant to their School, to the Secretary by Wednesday 7 September. Only the School of Engineering had submitted a response. The Chair agreed to extend the deadline for submitting comments to Thursday 15 September and requested Directors of Research to pay particularly attention to the relative weightings applied to research outputs, research environment and esteem in building up a quality profile for each submission.

ACTION:Directors of Research to submit their School’s response to the Secretary by Thursday 15 September

1.6.2Code of Practice on Preparing RAE Submissions

The Chair introduced this subject by proposing that the drafting of a code of practice should be given immediate priority and should also include the role of the external assessment. The Chair also reported that following discussions with senior staff in the Schools, there seemed to be broad agreement that the University’s submission should contain no tail. Only staff will be entered, whose outputs fall into the criteria that are covered by four, three and two star and, therefore, should at least be recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour. The Committee agreedwith this approach, while recommending that in the code of practice, allowance should be made for different criteria and levels of stringency for different Units of Assessment. The Committee, therefore, decided that the University’s code of practice should define the default position for selecting staff and should formulate the process and monitoring of this selection.

ACTIONSecretary together with Chair draft a code of practice for the next Research and Enterprise Committee meeting

1.6.3External Assessment

1.6.3.1External Assessors

1.6.3.2Preparation of submission:

• Staff details (RA0 and RA1)
• Research outputs (RA2)
• Research students and studentships (RA3a and RA3b)
• Research income (RA4)
• Research environment and esteem (RA5a), individual staff circumstances, (RA5b) and Category C staff circumstances (RA5c)

In discussing the external assessment, the Committee decided to extend the period for preparing the evidence that will be submitted to the external assessors with another month to end of October 2005. The Secretary reported that she had not yet received names of external assessors from every School, although this was mainly caused by some Schools still discussing which Unit of Assessment to submit to.

ACTION:Directors of Research to inform the Secretary of the RAE2008 Units of Assessment their School is going to submit to and suggest the names of external assessors before 1 October 2005

05/1.7University of Greenwich SRIF 2006-08 Programme Approval

The Committee noted that the University’s SRIF3 Programme had been approved by HEFCE

05/1.8Summary of HEIF3 Consultation

The Chair reported that the University has set up a working group led by the Director of RERA that will formulate the University’s response to this consultation. The HEFCE deadline for submitting institutional responses is Wednesday 5 October. The Committee members were requested to read the relevant documentation and to feed their views to the Director of RERA copying the Secretary into their responses.

ACTION:Committee members to feed their views on HEIF3 to the Director of RERA

05/1.9ITEMS FOR INFORMATION

1.9.1HEFCE Circular Letter16/2005:New Support Element for Charities Research Income

The item was noted for information

1.9.2RCUK - July 2005: Revision of Criteria for EU Nationals for RC Studentships

The item was noted for information

05/1.10AOB

05/1.11DATE OF NEXT MEETING

2.15 p.m., Monday 31st October, Room 075 Queen Anne, Maritime Greenwich.

1