UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK
For the meeting of the Research Committee to be held on 13 September 2012
Guidelines on University Research Centres
In the pursuit of the University’s strategy to achieve absolute international excellence in research, specialist research centres provide opportunities for the University and departments to identify, develop and derive reputational, intellectual and/or financial value from collective expertise in new, emerging and collaborative projects not reflected within the standard University structures (e.g. Faculty, department, departmental research divisions/groups/themes). The defining feature of a University Research Centre (URC), is the significant added value that is created should it not exist, noting that this should typically be expected to be sustainable in the medium and/or long term (minimum of three to five years).
Those research groupings who obtain University Research Centre status will be permitted to publicly position the Centre in this way and will appear within the University’s communications and information as such (e.g. publications and webpages listing the University’s research centres will include ONLY approved University Research Centres). The term ‘Research Centre’ in these guidelines is used in a general sense and is intended to refer to the broad spectrum of Research Centres and Institutes active in the University, noting that only those that are approved by the Senate, via the Research Committee in consultation with the relevant Faculty Board(s), as meeting the broad criteria set out below will be classed as a University Research Centre.
1. The Establishment and Disestablishment of University Research Centres (URCs)
(a) The decision as to whether a University Research Centre should be established or disestablished is made by the Senate on the recommendation of the Research Committee, who will consult the relevant Faculty Board(s) prior to making its formal recommendation.
(b) Proposals for the establishment of new University Research Centres, or significant amendments to the constitutions of existing Centres, should be considered by the Research Committee which will put forward a recommendation to the Senate following consultation with the relevant Faculty Board(s). Proposals should be submitted using the pro forma approved by the Research Committee, covering broadly the questions set out in Annexe 1.
(c) For proposals for minor amendments to a Centre’s constitution, a brief paper outlining the rationale for the amendments together with a copy of the Centre’s constitution highlighting the changes (additions underlined and deletions struck through) should be submitted for consideration as in (b) above. In some cases, minor revisions may be considered by the Chairs of the Research Committee and the relevant Faculty Boards on their behalf, for recommendation to the Vice-Chancellor on behalf of the Senate, as deemed appropriate by the Chair(s) of Research Committee. Where the proposal is for significant change to an existing Centre, the relevant sections of the pro forma should be completed together with a copy of the centre’s constitution highlighting the proposed amendments (typically with additions underlined and deletions struck through) and submitted for consideration as set out in (b) above.
(d) Proposals for the disestablishment of a University Research Centre should also be considered by the Research Committee which will put forward a recommendation to the Senate following consultation with the relevant Faculty Board(s). This ensures that all parties with an interest in a Centre have an opportunity to discuss the proposal and that the decision reached is recorded and accessible for reference purposes and for publications. The proposal to disestablish a University Research Centre should include a brief rationale as to why the Centre is being disestablished, together with a copy of the existing constitution of the Centre.
(e) Any proposals for the establishment, amendment, or disestablishment of University Research Centres should outline, wherever possible, any consultation already undertaken in relation to the proposal and the strength of support given to the proposal by the relevant Heads of Departments, Faculty Chairs, and/or Pro-Vice-Chancellors.
(f) Section 7 below outlines the common features of University Research Centres which should be considered prior to submitting a proposal for establishment, amendment or disestablishment of a University Research Centre and, in particular, when drafting or amending the constitutions of a University Research Centre.
2. Categorisation of University Research Centres
(a) Bearing in mind that the main criteria is the added value brought by the Centre, reputationally, intellectually and financially, each University Research Centre is designated as being placed in one of the following categories:
(I) Independent University Research Centres
(II) Substantive University Research Centres
(III) University Departmental Research Centres
The detailed criteria and descriptors of these categories are as set out in Annexe 3.
(b) When a new Research Centre is proposed to be established, a clear recommendation for which category it is to be placed initially within must be contained within the proposal.
(c) On an annual basis, Research Committee will consider a full list of Research Centres, together with any necessary supporting information or proposals for amendment, to review the current categorisation and to amend if necessary. A full review of the portfolio of University Research Centres, their categorisation and how they support the University’s research strategy will be undertaken on a three yearly basis as set out below.
3. The Review of University Research Centres
In addition to the specific framework of review for University Research Centres as set out here, University Research Centres may also be subject to review and/or reporting via other University processes to any or all of the relevant Head(s) of Department(s), their Advisory Board, the Academic Resourcing Committee, etc. All review processes should minimise the duplication of data collection and aim to utilise the information already collected and monitored via this process and, for instance, that of the Academic Resourcing Committee, wherever possible. Proposals to amend the constitution or membership of any University Research Centre can be made throughout the year as relevant and do not have to wait for the process of annual or triennial review set out below.
Annual Review Process
(a) In order for relevant and up to date information to be available to the Research Committee and the relevant Pro-Vice-Chancellors to inform the development of the University’s research strategy, as well as to maintain accurate records for publication in the University Calendar and elsewhere, a light-touch annual review process of all University Research Centres will be undertaken by the Research Committee.
(b) In the Spring Term each year, Directors of University Research Centres will be asked if its aims are still accurate, whether there are any amendments that are necessary to the Centre’s constitution, the Directorship of the Centre and/or the membership of the Centre’s Advisory Board (where relevant) or indeed whether the Centre wishes its category to be retained or amended.
(c) In the Summer Term each year, any proposals for amendment to the constitutions or directorships of University Research Centres will be considered by the Research Committee following consultation with the relevant Faculty Board(s) prior to any recommendation being made to the Senate.
(d) In the Autumn Term each year, a full list of University Research Centres, together with the category within which each has been classified, will be presented to the Faculty Boards for comment and the Research Committee for consideration.
Triennial Review Process
(e) All University Research Centres are reviewed every three years. This review is both to assess the sustainability of existing University Research Centres and to provide a mechanism for considering how the full portfolio of University Research Centres is supporting the University’s research strategy and whether there are any key areas where greater co-ordination or development might be proposed. The Triennial Review process will be co-ordinated with the Annual Review process set out above.
(f) In the Summer Term of the year preceding the Triennial Review, the Research Committee agrees the pro forma review form to be used. The pro forma will include broadly the issues as set out in Annexe 2. This is then made available to all Directors of Research Centres and Heads of academic departments who are to be informed that the Triennial Review of University Research Centres will be undertaken the following Autumn Term.
(g) In the Autumn Term of the year of the Triennial Review, all Directors of University Research Centres in category II (Substantive University Research Centres) and III (University Departmental Research Centres) are asked to complete the pro forma Triennial URC Review Form approved by the University Research Committee.
(h) University Research Centres in Category I (Independent University Research Centres) are reviewed by the Research Committee to assess how they support the University research strategy and as to their reputational and intellectual contribution, acknowledging that issues of financial sustainability are considered by the Academic Resourcing Committee (ARC). These category I Centres are to be requested to submit a relevant extract of the information submitted to the Academic Resourcing Committee as part of the Strategic Planning meetings (together with only any additional information that may be necessary for the Research Committee but not collected during the ARC process).
(i) Where the Centre has an Advisory Board, it is expected that the Board consider and comment on the documentation submitted in the Triennial Review process (either the pro forma or the ARC documentation) and for a brief report to be submitted summarising their views on current activities and future potential progress and development.
(j) University Research Centres in category III (University Departmental Research Centres) are initially reviewed by the Faculty Board of which their ‘parental’ department is a member. Heads of Department will give initial consideration to the pro forma review forms for all of the University Research Centres within their Department and will be requested to provide a brief summary as to how the Centres support the research strategy of the department and recommendations as to whether each Centre should be retained as a University Research Centre for a further period. All Head of Department summary statements, together with the pro forma Triennial URC Review Forms of the University Research Centres in category III which rest within departments in membership of a particular Faculty will be considered at the Autumn Term meeting of that Faculty Board. A summary report from each Faculty Board, inclusive of the Board’s recommendation as to whether the Centre should continue for a further three years or should be disestablished (either with immediate effect or within a certain time period) and whether, if yes, the Centres should retain classification as category III, should be presented to the University Research Committee as soon as possible following the Faculty Board meetings.
(k) In the Autumn Term, the University Research Committee (or a subset of it) will consider all review documentation submitted to it by category I and II University Research Centres and the summary reports provided by the Faculty Boards for category III Centres. A summary report from the University Research Committee, including recommendations for disestablishing, retaining, and/or amending any University Research Centres, will be submitted to the following meeting of the Senate (typically early in the Spring Term) for consideration.
(l) University Research Centres may also be reviewed as part of the University’s other strategic review processes. The most up to date pro forma review document will typically be used in such reviews for category II and III centres, however, it is likely that category I University Research Centres will be reviewed separately and may need to provide additional documentation.
(m) In the event that a Centre does not submit its review documentation as part of the URC Triennial Review process at the time required, it will be assumed that this represents a recommendation that the Centre be disestablished and the University Research Committee will advise the Senate accordingly.
4. Executive/Management Committee Structure
(a) A University Research Centre may contain provisions in its constitution for the establishment of a Management Committee or equivalent body, which is generally responsible for advising the Director on the more day-to-day activities of the Centre. The Management Committee would typically include members from all academic departments who have a significant financial or intellectual stake in the activities of the Centre.
(b) University Research Centres in category II (Substantive University Research Centres) would typically have a formally constituted executive/management committee and those in category I (Independent University Research Centres) would always have one, typically chaired by the Director of the Centre.
(c) Additional conditions may be applied by the Academic Resourcing Committee where the Centre is dependent on substantial direct and indirect contributions from central University funds.
(d) For some Category I University Research Centres, it may be determined by the Academic Resourcing Committee that University Regulation 1 on Departmental Management Structures should apply.
5. Directors of University Research Centres
(a) Appointments of Directors of University Research Centres are made by the Senate on the recommendation of the University Research Committee, (excepting those Directors appointed by the Advisory Committee on the Appointment of Heads of Department and those Centres subject to Regulation 30). For Category III Centres (Departmental), and for some Category II Centres (Substantive), the position of Director is recommended to the University Research Committee by the Head of the ‘parent’ department.
(b) Directors of Research Centres are appointed typically for three years from 1 September with an end of term of 31 August, appointments being renewable. The expiry date for their term of office is noted within the appropriate section of the University Calendar.
(c) Proposals for amendment to the Directorship of a University Research Centre should be forwarded to the Secretary to the University Research Committee who will ensure consideration by the Committee and notify the Governance Team of the outcome. Proposals for new University Research Centres and/or changes to the Directorship should clearly outline to whom the Director will report to. For Category I Centres, Directors will typically be in line with Heads of Academic Departments and will report to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, typically via the relevant Faculty Chair where the Centre is primarily based in one Faculty, or the relevant Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research), where the Centre crosses Faculty boundaries. For Category II Centres, the Directors will typically report to the relevant academic Head(s) of Department(s), but where this is not the case it should be clearly outlined in the constitution. All Directors of Category III Centres will typically report to the Head of the ‘parent’ department.