Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Dear , SENATE members in Universities may wish to see the latest HEFCE " consultation " document Review of Research Funding Method (August 2003/38 see www.hefce.ac.uk - deadline for email responses 6 November 2003). My judgement of this lengthy proposal is that it will do no good for " obscure " areas like health visiting and school nursing, especially in post-1992 universities (Liz, do you concur?) but also in relation to building up PhD and other postgraduate programmes in our area. The dismissive attitude to research charities and the NHS was especially worrying in relation to possible researcher-practitioners (i.e. most of the active researchers in HV and SN). Professional interests are ignored in this document - I wonder if it is worth compiling a Senate response? Nil carborundum, Woody. On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 13:23:40 +0100 Cowley <sarah.cowley@...> wrote: ---------------------- Woody Caan a.w.caan@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 I think a Senate response is an excellent idea Woody, to put a marker even though it probably won't change the outcome. I don't think I'm being unduly pessimistic in saying that, given the govt has just ignored the HoC select committee's views on the White Paper! Do you want to set the ball rolling? There were some helpful articles about the White Paper which we could draw on, since the Report is basically another manifestation of the desire to stratify HE. New Labour is extraordinarily hypocritical about widening access. Priority: NORMAL From: Woody Caan <a.w.caan@...> Date sent: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 14:13:16 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) Subject: Re: : Research Send reply to: [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] Dear , SENATE members in Universities may wish to see the latest HEFCE " consultation " document Review of Research Funding Method (August 2003/38 see www.hefce.ac.uk - deadline for email responses 6 November 2003). My judgement of this lengthy proposal is that it will do no good for " obscure " areas like health visiting and school nursing, especially in post-1992 universities (Liz, do you concur?) but also in relation to building up PhD and other postgraduate programmes in our area. The dismissive attitude to research charities and the NHS was especially worrying in relation to possible researcher-practitioners (i.e. most of the active researchers in HV and SN). Professional interests are ignored in this document - I wonder if it is worth compiling a Senate response? Nil carborundum, Woody. On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 13:23:40 +0100 Cowley <sarah.cowley@...> wrote: ---------------------- Woody Caan a.w.caan@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2003 Report Share Posted September 6, 2003 Woody, thanks for drawing this document to everyone's attention. Non-researchers can breathe a sigh of relief that their funding arrangements are so much less complex and their jobs so much more secure! Actually, most of these proposals will simplify the formula a bit; it is so immensely complicated at the moment. The difficulties with explaining/working out things like different overheads in research proposals and knowing which level is acceptable to funders and the institution is not to be underestimated, nor is the amount of pressure that we are under in those institutions aiming to be 'research funded' under the new arrangements. We are increasingly being leant on to choose our funders wisely; just getting funds is not sufficient, not that it is easy to do even that! I agree that it is going to be even more difficult in future to either get funding or develop research in small areas of interest, or to use research for developing professions; I suppose HEFCE might argue that their role is developing good science and advancing knowledge, not advancing or developing professions. The difficulty with too much of the research funding from government bodies, like the NHS, is that they are only interested in evaluations and application, not in funding the development of new knowledge, of which they can be a bit scornful. Where some of the new consortia are developing to spend mega-bucks of the NHS Priorities and Needs Funding, they seem mostly driven by the medical schools; very variable in their interests and research skills, I think, and not as well developed even as the old Regional Research managers who were, themselves, just learning the job. I am not surprised that HEFCE is giving them a bit a wide berth. Those 'medium status' funders (i.e., those that attract some payback funding) like the large medical charities: Macmillan Cancer relief, Diabetes UK, etc., which fund a lot of research in nursing and allied health professions are currently acceptable, but expensive because they do not pay any overheads; effectively that means the university subsidises the charity. It is only considered reasonable to do that because of the payback in the current HEFCE funding formula. My sense is that we may soon be advised to look elsewhere; we are constantly being pushed towards the Research Councils. Might that be a benefit for the future 'teaching universities' who would be unconstrained by the need for RAE-recognised funds and use them as stepping stones for developing a research base and funding outwith the HEFCE formula? Or am I being naive? I really don't pretend to understand it all; just know how much harder it is all getting! best wishes Woody Caan wrote: >Dear , > >SENATE members in Universities may wish to see the latest HEFCE > " consultation " document Review of Research Funding Method (August >2003/38 see www.hefce.ac.uk - deadline for email responses 6 November >2003). > >My judgement of this lengthy proposal is that it will do no good for > " obscure " areas like health visiting and school nursing, especially in >post-1992 universities (Liz, do you concur?) but also in relation to >building up PhD and other postgraduate programmes in our area. The >dismissive attitude to research charities and the NHS was especially >worrying in relation to possible researcher-practitioners (i.e. most of >the active researchers in HV and SN). > >Professional interests are ignored in this document - I wonder if it is >worth compiling a Senate response? > >Nil carborundum, >Woody. > >On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 13:23:40 +0100 Cowley <sarah.cowley@...> wrote: > >---------------------- >Woody Caan >a.w.caan@... > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2003 Report Share Posted September 18, 2003 Message-ID: <EXECMAIL.1030918155921.C@...> Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 5.1.1 Build (10) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset= " us-ascii " I agree Woody, if we don't at least make a try at changing things we will never be 'heard' and, being optimistic, you never know when the penny might drop for those that matter!!! Toity Wed, 3 Sep 2003 17:16:07 GMT MEERABEAU ELIZABETH <E.Meerabeau@...> wrote: > I think a Senate response is an excellent idea Woody, to put a > marker even though it probably won't change the outcome. I don't > think I'm being unduly pessimistic in saying that, given the govt has > just ignored the HoC select committee's views on the White Paper! > Do you want to set the ball rolling? > > There were some helpful articles about the White Paper which we > could draw on, since the Report is basically another > manifestation of the desire to stratify HE. New Labour is > extraordinarily hypocritical about widening access. > > > > Priority: NORMAL > From: Woody Caan <a.w.caan@...> > Date sent: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 14:13:16 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) > Subject: Re: : Research > Send reply to: > > [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] > > Dear , > > SENATE members in Universities may wish to see the latest HEFCE > " consultation " document Review of Research Funding Method (August > 2003/38 see www.hefce.ac.uk - deadline for email responses 6 November > 2003). > > My judgement of this lengthy proposal is that it will do no good for > " obscure " areas like health visiting and school nursing, especially in > post-1992 universities (Liz, do you concur?) but also in relation to > building up PhD and other postgraduate programmes in our area. The > dismissive attitude to research charities and the NHS was especially > worrying in relation to possible researcher-practitioners (i.e. most of > the active researchers in HV and SN). > > Professional interests are ignored in this document - I wonder if it is > worth compiling a Senate response? > > Nil carborundum, > Woody. > > On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 13:23:40 +0100 Cowley <sarah.cowley@...> > wrote: > > ---------------------- > Woody Caan > a.w.caan@... > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.