 |
 |
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