REVIEW OF ESRC - COMMENTS REQ'D BY JUNE 26TH
The Office of Science and Technology is currently conducing the
Quinquennial review of all the research councils. The review is now in
stage 2 and comments have been sought from all the learned societies (of
which SPA is one!) via the Academy.
We've been consulted late in the day so the time for submissions is
limited. The SPA Executive is planning to make a submission, and thus we
would welcome any comments you have to offer regarding the role of the
ESRC. There are four broad headings for comment:
1. Mission, structure and governance of the ESRC
2. Processes for priority setting and decision-making
3. Relations between the ESRC and clients
4. The ESRC's management and internal proceeses.
More detail about what each of these headings actually mean can be found
below. If any list members have comments they would like to submit, no
matter how brief, I'd be grateful for a response BY JUNE 26TH. Please reply
to [log in to unmask]
With thanks,
Linda Bauld
-----------------
QUINQUENNIAL REVIEW OF THE GRANT AWARDING RESEARCH COUNCILS
As you may know, Lord Sainsbury, Minister for Science and
Innovation, announced the quinquennial review of the 6 grant-awarding
Research Councils (EPSRC, BBSRC, MRC, NERC, PPARC, ESRC) on 13 February.
You may recall that a consultation was held over recent months for the
first stage of this review. The first stage considered the case for the
continued existence of the Research Councils, and their status. Responses
to the consultation on stage 1 have not indicated a strong body of opinion
in favour of changing their present status as executive non-departmental
public bodies at arm's length from Government, and Ministers are currently
considering that issue.
We are now therefore embarking on the more detailed stage 2 of the review.
I am writing to invite you to prepare your or your organisation's response
to the questions which will be considered in stage 2. Stage 2 of the
review will look at 4 broad themes, which emerged from the stage 1
consultation. These are:
(A) mission, structure and governance of the Research Councils;
(B) processes for priority-setting and decision-making;
(C) relations between the Councils and their clients; and
(D) Councils' management and internal processes.
More detail on the issues to be covered under each heading was given by the
OST and is available at http://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/whatsnew/ . This also
lists other studies in progress which our review will take account of. The
review will be overseen by a high-level steering group, supported by
working groups which will be chaired by members of the steering group and
which will include in their membership a range of stakeholders.
You are invited to submit views on any or all of these areas, focusing on
problems that you perceive and practical solutions, if possible structured
under the above headings. Equally we would like to know where you think the
situation is fine and should be left alone.
Richard King
Team Leader, Quinquennial review of the Research Councils
ANNEX A
QUINQUENNIAL REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH COUNCILS
STAGE TWO
1. ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
Responses to the stage 1 consultation identified a wide range of issues to
be addressed. Although these inevitably overlap, we have sorted them into
four categories, each of which will be addressed by a separate Working
Group, as follows:
A - mission, structure and governance
a) the missions of the Research Councils including their international
perspective;
b) the role of the Councils as providers of research (eg. through Council
institutes) as well as funders;
c) managing the Councils' place in the "tripartite" regime of knowledge
transfer, research and teaching;
d) the optimum top level governance of the Councils;
e) the optimum structure of the Councils;
f) promoting cross-Council working and working across the sciences and
arts/humanities;
g) respective roles of the Councils and of OST, and optimum working
arrangements in areas of joint responsibility.
B - priorities and decision-making
a) management of the "national research portfolio" supported through the
science budget;
b) methodology for setting priorities:
- in preparing proposals for Spending Reviews;
- in allocating funds between Councils following a Spending Review;
- in allocating funds within a Council;
- and for ensuring that the following are addressed systematically in
decision-making:
7 strategic and basic research needs;
7 equipment provision as well as provision of researchers;
7 need for large capital facilities;
c) processes for establishing an optimum balance between extramural spend in
HEIs and in other e.g. international facilities and intramural spend in
institutes etc.
d) the operation of peer review.
C - relations between the Research Councils and their clients
a) the effectiveness of the Research Councils' engagement with their
clients:
- the research communities;
- users of Council-funded research and postgraduates including industry,
commerce, Government and public services;
- other research funders/providers;
b) standards of service provided by the Councils, including transparency and
openness of Council operations, peer review and Council and committee
membership, and transaction costs associated with Council operations for
clients and for the Councils;
c) role of Research Councils in postgraduate and post-doctoral training and
the career structure for researchers.
D - Councils' management and internal processes
a) defining operational strategy;
b) setting objectives and targets, including outcomes;
c) managing and monitoring performance;
d) efficiency of management, administrative and support functions;
e) effective use of new technology, notably IT;
f) cross-Council processes at interface with clients.
2. OTHER STUDIES IN PROGRESS/PLANNED
Other issues
In selecting the issues for consideration in stage 2 of the review, we have
taken account of other studies/reviews going on or being commissioned in
parallel with this review. These include:
- the "Transparency Review" of university research and its follow-up;
- an OST/HMT/DfEE study of under-investment in research infrastructure;
- the Funding Council fundamental review of research funding;
- preparations for the 2002 Spending Review;
- an OST review of work on science communication;
- the independent review of postgraduate training announced at the time of
the 2001 Budget.
We are conscious of the need to take account of this other work but we do
not intend to duplicate it in this review.
------------------
Dr. Linda Bauld
Department of Social Policy
University of Glasgow
Lilybank House
Bute Gardens
GLASGOW G12 8RT
Tel and Fax: 0141 330 4352
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
|
