Dear Mr Sibley

The Funding of Research by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

I enclose the comments of the British Cartographic Society on the Consultation Paper on the funding of research by the HEFCE. We would like to stress that the uptake of Information Technology is continuing to open up new opportunities for basic research in cartography which is of strategic importance in the medium-term. Research in cartography tends to be be dissipated across disciplines including Geography, Land Surveying and Computer Science. Moreover, outstanding contributions have been made by individual researchers working in small departments within both the older universities and polytechnics. We are therefore concerned that funding based on the department as the unit of measurement could undermine the contributions of these individuals.

Dr. M. Visvalingam, September 1992
Chairperson, Research Committee, British Cartographic Society
 

Comments from the British Cartographic Society on:

The Funding of Research by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

This comment assumes that the following objectives underpin the promotion of research, namely:

• the maintenance of Britain's distinguished position as a major contributor to the advancement of knowledge

• the improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of government functions and of the competitiveness of the British economy and its
  industries
  
  These objectives have to be furthered by policies which are in accordance with the country's evolving social and economic circumstances. Recent circumstances favour a skewed distribution of resources within the enlarged university sector. We note that the HEFCE's method for resource allocation are guided by and reflect:
   

  • the varying objectives of research; HEFCE remains the major source of support for basic research before it is sufficiently advanced to attract external funding.

  • the existence of other sources of research income and government's expectation that universities should become less dependent on it

  • actual and potential achievement of departments as reflected by the Research Assessment Exercise.

  The other sources of funds, which favour strategic and applied research, are already becoming concentrated on high flyers. Further, the transfer of some funds from the UFC to the Science Vote will also lead to a further concentration of funds into established centres of excellence. This is desirable since established expertise is an essential pre-requisite for, what Kuhn has labelled, paradigmatic or ordinary research.
  
  However, scientific breakthroughs represent the discontinuities between significant epochs in the history of research. The past is only a reliable predictor of the future during an epoch. Furthermore, intuitive leaps of the imagination often escape the 'in-bred' mind which, according to history, has not always been able to make an immediate mental shift when presented with a new paradigm. The spread and continuity of UGC/UFC funding in the past has enabled visionaries to persevere with significant pioneering projects and
  eventually bring them to a successful conclusion despite peer rejection and without support from other sources. The history of these projects highlights the fallibility of the peer-review system which tends to be psychologically constrained by the mind set of its own paradigm.
  
  We therefore agree with the need to avoid ossification of the system through inclusion of a DevR component and urge that it should be large enough to provide a genuine incentive to the second league of research departments.  Access to the DevR component should be limited to this tier. The process of  allocation should not entail a further time consuming and costly bidding exercise. We agree that institutions should have the scope for using their grant for pump-priming new initiatives and for long-term collaboration with
  outside bodies on basic and strategic, but not applied or near-market, research.
  
  It is not yet clear as to how the information collected for the Research Assessment Exercise will be used to rate departments. Research ratings, however derived, can be no more than indicators of performance. The nature of research and of the data and the difficulties of both objective and subjective assessment make the precise nominal classification of departments in the middle ranges into actual and potential achievers somewhat academic. Too great a disparity in the funding of the moderately good, compared with the potential achievers, will undermine that potential and deflate morale, incentive and competitiveness. A more equitable distribution of resources across these two groups should be achieved, if necessary, by use of DevR funds ear-marked for those with potential.
  
  It would be unfortunate if the strengthening of current centres of excellence for strategic and applied research results in the demolition of the platform for 'pure' and 'fundamental' research which this nation has so proudly established and extended since the 1910s. The degrees of all pre-1992 British universities are recognised and highly valued internationally. There is a universal association of research with a university; Britain implanted this idea in the minds of our ex-colonies and protectorates. An over-zealous application of the principle of selection can dent the reputation of many of our universities in the growing world market for higher education and
  indirectly damage the competitiveness of British industry by undermining the potential for promoting Britain through our extensive higher education sector.  We therefore accept the principle of selection as expedient in the current circumstances and look forward to times which favour the pursuit of basic research by a wider research community.
  
  SUMMARY
  
  1. The HEFCE's strategies for resource allocation must be formulated within an overall policy for funding research in Britain; not in
  isolation for the sake of administrative convenience.
  
  2. The funding policy must serve the nature of research and the psychology and sociology of researchers and not just political and economic considerations. Innovative and paradigmatic research have differing needs. We favour a wider distribution of resources for basic research but accept that some degree of selectivity is unavoidable in the present circumstances.
  
  3. The establishment of centres of excellence should not be at the expense of ensuring base line funding for outstanding individual
  researchers in small departments. Cartographic research, for instance, tends to be dissipated across several disciplines, e.g. Geography, Geology, Surveying and Computer Science. Moreover, outstanding contributions have been made by individual researchers working in small departments within both the older universities and polytechnics. We are therefore concerned that funding based on the department as the unit of measurement could undermine the efforts of these individuals.
  
  4. We applaud the inclusion of a DevR component as an insurance against ossification. Given the unpredictable nature of research breakthroughs, more than a modest amount is needed to stimulate research competition.
  
  5. The QR component should not be so dominant that there is little encouragement to potential achievers. The peer-review system is not impartial and objective enough to be treated as infallible.
  
  6. There is no call for use of anything other than a linear scale for research rating, particularly since institutions with established centres
  of excellence are likely to accrue economies of scale in-built into the volume measures.
  
  7. We favour the concept of the active researcher in volume measures.
  
  8. While it is reasonable to withdraw floor funding for departments with zero ratings which have shown little commitment to research in the past, the principle of selectivity should not be carried to an extent which prejudices overseas perception of British higher education.
  
  9. HEFCE funds should not be used to subsidise the research requirements of outside bodies. There are a number of other collaborative schemes and mechanisms which encourage and reward income generation. The Research Assessment Exercise also takes account of such research income. Thus, the inclusion of a CR component, however small, will exaggerate this
  element and detract from the principal objectives of HEFCE funding.

  
  Dr. M. Visvalingam for the British Cartographic Society
  September 1992

< IRW Home Page >