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
|