Of course, another explanation is the Matthew Effect - To them that hath it
shall be given, and from them that hath not etc..!  If you are already well
funded and have experienced staff whose contracts you need to renew anyway
from new funding, you can 'look' a good option, but as most research adds
next to nothing to the sum total of human knowledge, it would be interesting
to discover of the completed TLTP and FDTL projects which of them have made
a significant impact, and are continuing to do so - by type of institution!

An argument can perhaps be made that research traditions need to be
supported by a mass of researchers whose research is largely irrelevant (and
whom Ortega y Gasset classified as 'mediocre').  Indeed, this theory that
the 'mediocre' researchers are neccessary to the advance of science has been
called the 'Ortega hypothesis' - but Cole and Cole in the USA have claimed
to have refuted it through a series of empirical studies ie the mass of
'mediocre' scientists contributes nothing significant to the advance of
knowledge, the impact of new theories, or to the development of 'elite' and
highly productive scientists. (Such is the power of the science lobby, the
Coles' extremely well researched and itemised work (since supported by other
reseachers) has had no impact on the massive expansion of insignificant
research over the last 30 years.) Recently, however, arguments for
concentrating scientific research in 'elite' institutions might be
considered to be recognising the Coles' work, painful as that may be to the
thousands of y Gasset's 'mediocrities' in our universities. The last thing I
am is an elitist, but it surely makes sense to concentrate the high cost of
science in a few insitutions, with as little duplication as possible - or
preferably in my view, research centres apart from the universities. The
same case probably does not apply in the humanities - at least I have seen
no research to a similar conclusion as the Coles' for science, and so the
Ortega hypothesis may be valid in the humanities. Anyway it is time we
recognised the difference between *scholarship* - absolutely essential to
all teachers in a university, and *research* which is not essential and
often actually impedes scholarly values.

This ramble of mine around the possible 'usefulness' of even largely
irrelevant research is intended to pose the question whether a similar
analysis might be made of 'development' activities like TLTP and FDTL etc.
Are all the wasted 'mediocre' projects justified a la Ortega hypothesis, or
should the funding bodies do better analysis (real research, not the loaded
dice of the soi disant 'research' done by HEFCE's commercial consultants!)
on where the good projects are coming from.  It might be that the 25% from
the new universities have a much higher 'impact' that the 72% from the
pre-92s. Of course, the case of 'staff development' is sometimes used to
justify unsuccessful projects.  Cole and Cole found this argument completely
invalid in the case of scientific research - the elite trains the elite, and
there is very little 'social mobility'.

How about a 'where are they now' tracking the millions spent?  I don't
believe there is any connection between the ability to write a good bid and
the likelihood of real success measured in terms of impact beyond the
institution. But how would I or anybody know...?

Chris O'Hagan



-----Original Message-----
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development
Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Saunders D M (CeLL)
Sent: 04 September 2002 11:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FDTL4 Outcome


A very interesting observation. And this might mirror the earlier relative
success of the old universities in bidding for the LTSN centres? I suspect
that some of the answer might lie with old universities having relatively
more experience in writing bids for various research proposals. Perhaps this
transfers into other forms of bidding?

Danny Saunders

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Outram [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 03 September 2002 10:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: FDTL4 Outcome


Dear All


Having just seen the successful projects from the FDTL4 submissions
( http://www.ncteam.ac.uk/projects/fdtl/fdtl4/index.htm )

I cannot help but notice that the 'trad' universities ( I have
included OU here) have been successful in 26 bids; post '92 in 9 bids
and colleges ( St Mary's Surrey) in 1. I do not know the appropriate
ratio's for Subject Review profiles 22 or better nor the one's for
FDTL4 bids and success in getting to stage two of the bidding. The
outcome, nevertheless, is that post '92 universities have achieved 25%
of successful projects.  I would be interested in possible explanations.

Steve

Steve Outram  - Co-Director
The Learning Development Centre
Staffordshire University
College Road, Stoke-on-Trent,ST4 2XS
Tel:01782 294808
Fax: 01782 295730