UK Universities Await Publication of Broad Principles Determining Universities' Research Funding. (February 9, 2009)

On January 20 The Guardian's Anthea Lipsett reported: "Tomorrow, the broad principles determining what funding universities receive next year will be set. The final allocations for university funding in 2009-10 are not due until 4 March, but vice-chancellors are already lobbying for their financial futures. Around £1.5[A$3.3]bn a year in research funding is at stake as officials at the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) work out what money will follow December's research assessment exercise (RAE)."

TFW reported on January 16: "The Russell Group of 20 large research-intensive universities, which garners the lion's share [82%] of research funding claims it risks "haemorrhaging money" in allocations which may be made based on the 2008 RAE. It argues that funding should be based not only on the quality, but also the volume of research submitted to the exercise, which, not surprisingly, would maintain the status quo."

In the almost three weeks since The Guardian's report, if the V-Cs have been told anything, they're keeping tight-lipped. So currently we're none-the-wiser as to how the UK government is going to deal with the vexing problem that 150 of that nation's 159 universities have one or more researchers who are classified as doing 4* (world leading) research.

The same day Ms Lipsett filed her report Luke Georghiou, professor of Science and Technology Policy and Management at Manchester Business School, University of Manchester and Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Humanities "writing in a personal capacity" wrote in The Guardian:

Since 1992, when the former polytechnics became universities, there has been a tension between the benefits of sharing that label and the national need for a variety of types of institution... Officials are struggling to find a means of allocating research funds that does not drastically reduce the present share received by leading research universities but on the other hand "rewards quality wherever it is found"... [This] tag refers to the change in the RAE... The effect of this has been to create calls for a redistribution of funds to those at the bottom end, most of whom have some evidence of quality that would previously been concealed and left below the threshold for funding.

Part of the problem is that the RAE's architect, the late Sir Gareth Roberts, had only half of his [2003] proposals adopted... Noting that 40 out of 132 English HEIs had research accounting for less than 2% of their income he suggested that those in this category should stay out of the peer-reviewed quality assessment and be compensated with a basic level of income.

While research funding in the UK is concentrated so are the outputs it produces. The top 10 institutions got 50% of funding council research income but they matched that share in competitive funding and exceeded it in publications. Most tellingly they accounted for two thirds of citations, the most objective indicator of international judgement of the UK's research quality.

The real issue is that leading-edge research excellence is not something that we need from all universities.

Professor Georghiou then proceeds to introduce a monumental non sequitur explaining that "For much of the economy the pressing need is for the supply of skilled graduates and retraining for wider segments of the population who find their present capabilities redundant [and] another need is for intellectual capacity that is focused on solving firms' problems, often by applying existing knowledge in creative ways."

And the professor of Science and Technology Policy and Management at Manchester Business School concludes: "A much smaller core of national research-based universities would support our most advanced sectors, including the creation of new firms, and take responsibility for support of national culture and social development."

Apparently the concept that researchers at institutions not of the Russell Group, if doing 4* research, if anything are more outstanding researchers because they haven't got the infrastructure available at Oxbridge, University College, or Manchester, isn't a consideration.

Professor Georghiou appears to be prepared to penalise brilliance outside the circle of the chosen few; he makes the argument that the UK system is best because the only research universities in the world's top ten not in the United States are two in the UK (Cambridge and Oxford)

Let's counter that with an argument no less compelling if equally specious.

The state of California with a population 61% that of the United Kingdom has three research universities in the top ten -- all three rank above Oxford and two above Cambridge as well -- they are not beneficiaries of an RAE. And all the while the US system, which by no means claims perfection, does aim to reward quality wherever it is found.

Meanwhile in Australia the wombat of the ERA burrows inexorably deeper -- and more blindly.