“Excellence is not cheap”

I was pleased to be able to attend Peter Mandelson’s first major Higher Education speech yesterday, in which he highlighted some of the concerns in the field which the recently created Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will take forward. Lord Mandelson began by emphasising the huge changes which the sector has undergone over the last 150 years, and suggesting that it was these changes that shaped the 20th century. Clearly, more changes are needed now for the universities to have a similarly radical effect on the 21st century. Like John Denham before him, Mandelson is keen to point out that although he believes we are already in a position of strength with regard to the status of our universities, there is no doubt that things are going to get more difficult, especially with the current economic crisis. The fees system has been, he considers, “a radical and signal success”, necessary to strengthen university resources, but further changes are needed and we must keep in mind the changing demographics of HE and ask of the universities system, “for what end, for who, and how?” These questions are to provide the backdrop for the HE framework to be published in the Autumn, as well as the fees review which is currently ongoing, and Mandelson was careful not to pre-empt these. The HE framework is to be the “flagship policy statement” for BIS, a suggestion which may have pleased those concerned that BIS are now responsible for HE policy-making; Mandelson said that this puts higher education at the heart of policy-making, and should not be seen as a retrograde step.

The speech concentrated on three main areas, the first of which was the economic role of universities, which, he stated, are not “factories for producing workers”. Certainly he did much to allay some of the more frequent concerns which appear in the pages of the newspapers; universities are not meant to be primarily economic institutions; knowledge is an end in itself, and our universities preserve this, and students gain advantages through their soft skills such as intellectual confidence and critical thinking as much as through anything more specifically commercial, although Mandelson did say that universities do need to think about how to commercialise knowledge. Of course, this is in part about research collaboration (related to the new REF framework, in which “impact” will be highly credited – read about that here). I was especially pleased to hear that a review is being launched around post-graduate education, something which is frequently overlooked. This is to be led by Professor Adrian Smith, and will report back early in 2010.

The second issue considered was that of social mobility, linking in part to Alan Milburn’s recent report, the remit of which was much wider than HE. Mandelson states firmly that “we are doing better, but not well enough”, and, moreover, that he is getting “impatient” with the problems of fair access and widening participation, and intends to “turn the spotlight on” university admissions, particularly in the more selective universities. The journey towards HE needs to begin earlier, a point I strongly agree with. In a quotable phrase, he said he is intending that we reach a point where “the daughter of a Hartlepool shopkeeper has the same chance of being a high court judge as the son of a Surrey stockbroker”. Clearly there is political enthusiasm to support universities which find innovative ways to “identify talent” in young people who might otherwise not enter HE, and also to address the situation of part-time and mature students, especially to demonstrate that BIS is serious about life-long learning. (This prompted a question at the end from Sally Hunt, UCU general secretary, about the possibility of revising the cuts to ELQ funding, which elicited the response that there are difficult choices to be made, and ELQ cuts freed up £100m to support first-time students, but this would be reviewed in the Autumn). It is, Mandelson emphasised, all about “natural talent, not social background”. So far, so good…

The final issue covered was that of funding, of course. “Excellence is not cheap”, as we well know, and sources of funding need to be widened, to include more in the way of endowments, research collaboration and global exports, but the bottom line is the need for state and user funding. I felt Mandelson was woollier here than on any other issue, but basically the implication is that, without pre-empting the forthcoming fees review, fees will need to go up for those who can afford them in order to provide support for those who otherwise could not participate in HE.

By way of conclusion, he wanted to “make it clear what kind of universities secretary he is”: he sees universities’ roles as “passing on existing knowledge, generating new knowledge, and helping ensure that new knowledge underwrites our collective prosperity wherever possible”. Now, the government – and the universities – have to face up to the “challenge of paying for excellence”. The speech was well-received by those present, and made the right noises; now, however, we shall have to wait and see what the Autumn brings.

There are other reports and discussions of the speech available on the internet, including The Times, The Times Higher Education, the BBC and The Guardian. The full text of Lord Mandelson’s speech is available here.

Arts and humanities well worth it

This week the AHRC (Arts and Humanities Research Council) have published a report on the economic, social and cultural impact of their work.  The AHRC fund many research projects and have a huge impact on the arts and humanities in the UK – not just those they fund, but also as a kind of cultural advocate.

Last year, DIUS said it would be interested to see a report on the economic impact of the arts and humanities, and the AHRC have produced this largely to justify why they deserve the public money they receive (and why they need more of it, too). There is a strong emphasis on the impact of the arts and humanities outside the universities, which is good to see, as it does feel that such subject areas are called upon to defend themselves more than the sciences.

The report says that “Arts and humanities research can make an enormous
contribution to the economic prosperity and social fabric of the UK” and, whilst accepting that there is no formal or traditional method to measure the impact of the field, clearly sets out how it proceeded to do this. In a way, it is a shame that any genuine academic area finds itself in a beleaguered position that requires this kind of defence in our statistics society, but it happens, and all the UK research councils are required to do this.

The findings of the report suggests that arts and humanities subjects outperform sciences in research output, and that they did better than other areas in the Research Assessment Exercise, too. Whether these advantages will be turned to financial advantage for the sector seems dubious in light of the current economic situation, but if nothing else it makes me feel the UK isn’t a bad place to be researching at the moment!

You can read the report online here, or there’s a good summary on the Times Higher Education website here.

The Launch of the Council of Science and Technology’s report, “How academia and government can work together”

The CST is the most senior science advisory body in the UK, reporting directly to the Prime Minister, and has 15 members, ranging from social scientists to industrialists. Their role includes advising on innovation policy and undertaking projects; this was one such project, instigated by John Denham.

Professor Dame Janet Finch introduced the report. This report was required since a need was identified to strengthen meaningful engagement between academia and government. These are not the same issues as face engagement between academia and industry, though there are some comparable points. The CST sees there is a gulf between academia and government, and is looking at why and how it can be bridged.

The report recommends three areas to be considered:
- Build relationships and communication between academics and policy-makers
- Build capacity to ensure a more active engagement (on both sides)
- Rate, value and reward the engagement (ensure it is reflected in career structures etc.)
What is needed is more world-class exchange mechanisms, in both directions, at all levels and for different purposes.

John Denham offered a government response to the report. The need is apparent to mobilise the resources of our world-class research base. This relates to the HE Review which is ongoing, since better working relations between academics and government will help to make the case for further investment in academia. Ministers need policies that work, and evidence for it, and academia can produce this. Both sides need to see this interaction as “part of the day job”. There are issues which need to be addressed, such as the relationship with the Research Excellence Framework (the replacement for the Research Assessment Exercise), but DIUS is looking in depth at practical proposals for taking this forward.

Baroness Warwick, Chief Executive of UUK, responded on behalf of the universities. We should be “delighted” that government recognises the significance of academic input to policymaking. The report points out that there is a need to reconcile differing expectations, and for a culture change to facilitate the exchange of people, research and resources. The universities are in a unique position to make a contribution to government and there is much to be learned from this experience. We need greater permeability of the boundaries between academia and the wider world generally. The details now need to be worked out; for example, we cannot only reward research which finds political favour.

Finally, three researchers who had taken part in an ESRC exchange scheme discussed their experiences with Vivien Parry, highlighting the issues of the report, such as that there seemed little merit for their department, and is not recognised as an aspect of their research careers. However, all three recommended the ESRC exchange as an excellent way of contributing to policymaking and as a positive experience for them.

The report is available online here.

Dumbing down?

I’m very interested to see that some investigation is going to be carried out into whether universities are really “dumbing down”. Following a Times Higher poll in which 9 out of 10 academics said they thought standards were falling, a cross-party panel of MPs is now to investigate whether this is really the case, and they are asking for those with “hard evidence” to “come out of the woodwork”. If the job is done properly, one way or another this ought to put the issue to rest. But I fear it may be somewhat idealistic to think that anything conclusive either way can be proved. And besides, surely this investigation ought to start with the A-level system – since so many of the woes of the modern university have their roots in pre-18 education. You can read the Times Higher report here.

National Student Forum

I’m delighted to say that the National Student Forum has launched our first annual report. This was presented to the Government by our chair last week, and we have been promised a formal response to the points we have raised about improving life for students in the UK.

We now have a website, which means that hopefully people will start to know who we are! The website, with information about who we are and what we do, and also with a link to the report, can be found here.

DIUS Expo 08

Anyway, after my trip to Russia it’s back to work and reality. I was pleased to be invited to attend the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills Expo 08: One Year On, to celebrate DIUS’s anniversary, as a new department, and to have the opportunity to consider what has been done in that year. The first workshop I attended was from Research Councils UK, talking about “Unlocking the Talents of UK Researchers”. Obviously, as a (largely unfunded) researcher myself, this was something I was particularly interested to hear about. The speaker gave some background, stating that in terms of bibliometric data, the UK’s researchers are second in ranking only the the US, and are the most productive in a G8 country. Moreover, we’re international, apparently – nearly half of postgrads and 1 in 7 academics are from overseas.
The research councils’ missions are to support research excellence (good!) However, as the speaker admitted, although the seven research councils cover all possible areas of research, there is still an emphasis on STEM subjects (science, engineering, technology and mathematics). Research, it seems, still equals science. All seven councils have common missions (which I believe can be found on the RCUK website, if you care!)
RCUK have three particular ways of helping researchers: Providing skills/skilled people; stimulating ideas, and providing opportunities. The skills aspect is largely about training, it seems, and the skills needed by researchers include: research techniques, entreprenerial skills, public engagement, management, personal effectiveness, communication skills and networking. Fair enough – mostly. However, I am a little more dubious about aligning research with public policy – yes, to a certain extent that helps to put the universities on the agenda and ensures that much-needed research is being done. But that must not be at the cost of “blue skies” research, in any discipline. (Kind of related to this, an interesting article in the Times Higher talks about universities’ role in working with innovation). There are six programmes running involving three or more research councils, and they are: Living with environmental change; Energy; Ageing: Lifelong health and wellbeing; Global Uncertainties: security for all in a changing world; Digital Economy; Nanotechnology through engineering to application. All worthy, but you know, I don’t see much room for Victorian poetry, heritage, culture etc there.
In fact, I was at the Expo as part of a panel, representing the National Student Forum – and if you don’t know what that is, hopefully you will do soon as we are about to release a report. We’re 16 students from across the UK, working with DIUS to represent the student voice, and, building on reports from Student Juries across the country, help the government tackle issues such as finance, teaching standards, employability, accomodation, information and support, etc. We had a session in the afternoon with Baroness Morgan, Minister for Students, who has been immensely supportive of us, and it was great to see that so many of the delegates are genuinely interested in helping to make the lives of students better.

Culture and Anarchy?

Read this. I agree (mostly): It’s the culture, stupid.