Point 7 states that data on research-active staff will be
taken from 2001. As research assistants and fellows will
also be taken from 2001 I think that students follow staff
as should compensation/adjustment if we put students into
UoAs where we have no 1996 track record and get no QR for
them in 2002/3.
The document doesn't indicate any problem with the method
for 2002/3. Except that I had thought HEFCE were dropping
charity income as a volume measure.
Mark Judge
Planning Officer
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:18:54 +0100 "Radcliffe, Dave"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This problem isn't limited to just post-92 institutions. The classic areas
> of difficulty are Medicine and Maths. In the time available for the return,
> assumptions and estimates (guesses) have to be made about UoA allocation.
> (OK, think I've managed to contradict myself....)
>
> I presume HEFCE make them as well, as no where in the RAS do we disaggregate
> data for multi-submissions. Therefore QR is a bit of a fudge.
>
> In terms of the deadlines, I thought 10th & 12th were quite generous,
> especially in comparison to last years. At least we get to lose 2 weekends,
> rather than 1.
>
> Dave
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Milne-picken [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 22 October 2001 17:43
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: HEFCE Research Activity Survey 2001
> >
> >
> > Dave's points make the classic mistaken assumption that
> > 'Departments' and UoAs are one and the same. This is
> > certainly NOT the case in the post-92 universities, where
> > departments tend to be much larger and more
> > multi-disciplinary, and where research activity is more
> > likely to be concentrated in interdisciplinary areas at the
> > intersection of departments.
> >
> > While it is the case that all non-returned staff have been
> > returned to a UoA in each RA0, the problem is that some of
> > these groups of staff will have been returned to different
> > UoAs in 2001 to 1996 - as a result of the research and
> > academic strategy of the university evolving.
> >
> > As I said some weeks ago - we seem to be getting stuck in a
> > time warp here. RAS makes it even worse - potentially one
> > foot in the past and one foot in the present!
> >
> > I meant to comment that the RAS is due in on 12 December! I
> > was told by HEFCE that the RAE results would also be
> > announced on that day. Good timing, or what??
> >
> > Mike Milne-Picken
> > Head of Planning & Performance Review
> > University of Central Lancashire
> > PRESTON
> > PR1 2HE
> > Tel: +44 (0)1772 892391
> > Fax: +44 (0)1722 892943
> > [log in to unmask]
> > www.uclan.ac.uk/planning
> >
> > >>> [log in to unmask] 22 October 2001 16:57:16 >>>
> > All,
> > I think the RAS01 seems to be covering both possibilities by
> > ensuring that
> > those who might get QR also do a return, just in case the
> > HEFCE board goes
> > against the wishes of the C.E.
> >
> > I think you're right to highlight the problems that occur around the
> > movement of staff (students, charities income) between UoAs. I think
> > guidance will be needed as there is little point returning volume that
> > hasn't been assessed for quality, or returning volume into
> > lower quality
> > UoAs where it could legimately belong elsewhere.
> >
> > As I understand it you never have to worry about the effect
> > of students
> > being supervised by non-research active staff, as non-RAs
> > should have been
> > "returned" to a UoA.
> > The RAS return hasn't had scope for splitting the FTE of FT
> > PGRs across UoAs
> > (only headcounts are used). In the past, I have not concentrated on
> > examining student supervisors (or for real detail, thesis
> > titles), or joint
> > supervisions, I simply use the programme and department of study to
> > determine the UoA.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michael Milne-picken [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: 22 October 2001 16:12
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: HEFCE Research Activity Survey 2001
> > >
> > >
> > > Apologies for cross-posting
> > >
> > > This document has just been posted on the web (01/61).
> > >
> > > It seems to confirm the 'word on the street' that HEFCE will
> > > use 1996 grades but 2001 volume data to allocate QR for
> > > 2002-03. (I understand HEFCE officials made a statement at
> > > last week's data seminars to the effect that this would go to
> > > the November HEFCE Board).
> > >
> > > Has anyone else worked out what to do about staff or research
> > > groups supervising research students who have moved UoA
> > > between 1996 and 2001? If we assume students should follow
> > > staff, then the students should also logically move.
> > >
> > > But if the UoA into which they have been moved was ungraded
> > > in 1996 (or lower graded than the one they have moved into),
> > > then surely institutions in such a position will lose money
> > > in 2002-03, at least until the new grades come into effect
> > > sometime in the next decade.
> > >
> > > Doesn't seem very fair!
> > >
> > > I haven't even begun to think about students crossing UoAs,
> > > or supervised by non-returned members of staff.
> > >
> > > The circular seems strangely silent on guidance or safeguards
> > > to funding - almost as if data collection had nothing to do
> > > with funding policy! (as if ...!)
> > >
> > > Anyone else share these concerns?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mike Milne-Picken
> > > Head of Planning & Performance Review
> > > University of Central Lancashire
> > > PRESTON
> > > PR1 2HE
> > > Tel: +44 (0)1772 892391
> > > Fax: +44 (0)1722 892943
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > > www.uclan.ac.uk/planning
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Dr Dave Radcliffe, Planning Officer
> > Planning & Policy Development Section
> > Academic Office, University of Birmingham
> > Tel: 0121 414 3753
> >
|