My THELoginRegister
Third Level Navigation:
09 February 2010

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

-
Main Page Content:

Russell Group counts the cost as allocations slash the funding available per researcher

12 March 2009

Amount for elite staff cut by £6,000, Times Higher Education analysis shows. Zoë Corbyn reports

England's elite research universities have lost an average of more than £6,000 per researcher as a result of last week's funding allocations, according to a new analysis by Times Higher Education.

The figures, which show one institution losing more than £12,000 for each full-time researcher, have led to warnings that the UK's world-leading institutions may have to reduce the amount of research they do to balance the books.

Last week, a total of £1.572 billion in recurrent research cash for 2009-10 was shared out between 124 English institutions on the basis of the 2008 research assessment exercise's results.

Because the money was more widely distributed than in previous allocations, the share of mainstream quality-related (QR) research funding awarded to the Russell Group of large research-intensive universities fell from 65 per cent to 60 per cent.

A number of teaching-led institutions were awarded funding for the "pockets of excellence" identified by the RAE.

Of the big research players, Imperial College London lost £5 million, a drop of 5.1 per cent; the University of Southampton lost £3.3 million, a fall of 6.9 per cent; and the London School of Economics lost £2.4 million, a decline of 13.4 per cent.

But the analysis by Times Higher Education reveals the full extent of the changes to the higher education funding landscape.

It looked at the research funding each university received against the total number of staff whose work was submitted to the RAE.

Across the English sector, there was an overall increase of 12 per cent in the number of staff entered into the exercise, bringing the total to nearly 42,000 full-time equivalent academics. This rise was against an increase in total research funding of 8 per cent, a real-terms increase of 6 per cent (with inflation standing at a rate of 2 per cent). The average drop in funding per researcher is £1,400.

Russell Group

All 16 of the English Russell Group institutions experienced a reduction in the amount of research funding per researcher for their 2009-10 allocation (which is based on the 2008 RAE) compared with their 2008-09 allocation (based on the 2001 RAE).

The fall, which averaged £6,100 per researcher across the group, ranged from £12,100 per researcher at Southampton to about £400 at the University of Liverpool.

Even the University of Nottingham, which received the biggest cash increase in total research funding of any university (a rise of £9.6 million), received only £36,500 per researcher - a drop from the £41,700 secured previously.

Falls and rises

Among the 1994 Group of smaller research-intensive universities, the picture is not much brighter.

With only two exceptions - Queen Mary, University of London and the University of Leicester - all experienced a drop in funding averaging £5,100 per researcher. The biggest loser in the analysis was the University of the Arts London, which saw its figure per researcher plummet by £27,700 to £26,400.

By contrast, all Million+ universities secured increases in funding per researcher. The biggest winner was the University of East London. Its research staff can celebrate a jump in funding from £8,600 to £24,800 each.

Tough decisions

Malcolm Grant, president of the Russell Group and provost of University College London, said the analysis showed that while research-intensive universities had been running to stand still, the drop per researcher meant that they had not be able to keep up.

"It becomes very difficult to see how a university can run the same volumes of activity and yet balance its books," he said. "This has not been a favourable settlement for what are among the world's most outstanding research universities."

But he rejected any assumption that the Russell Group had faltered in the RAE. It was trying to improve its output from a "very high position", while the RAE's structure had enabled pockets of excellence outside the research elite to be identified and funded.

Paul Wellings, president-elect of the 1994 Group, said the "substantially less" money coming into universities per researcher would lead to some tough decisions.

"Where individual departments have a shortfall on the research side, they are either going to have to earn more research money in a recession, which is very difficult; recruit more students, which will mean more international students; or staff won't be replaced at the same rate.

"We could see some unusual patterns emerging quickly as senior management teams start to reflect on what the internal consequences (of the RAE) will be."

zoe.corbyn@tsleducation.com

Readers' comments

  • Professor Graeme Harper 12 March, 2009

    I can't disagree with Malcolm Grant's mathematical analysis; but I would add, and trust he'd support this comment, that research in the Arts and Humanities (where British universities also also, indeed, "among some of the world's most outstanding universities") contributes to the economy, and to culture and society, in an extremely cost-effective and substantial way. I am sure, with the support of Vice-Chancellors, Principals and Provosts, such as Professor Grant, we will continue to do so.

  • Keith 13 March, 2009

    We should consider cutting some of the senior and middle management bureuacrats from the UK Universities. Most of them drain the budgets with their useless new initiatives which really have little impact at the front end of the business. It is the Professors and Lecturers that do the teaching and research and the middle and senior management then live of the proceeds.

  • Professor Derek Moore 13 March, 2009

    It is about time new Universities got some reward for years of improving research on virtually no money. In terms of cost effectiveness new university researchers have performed miracles, particualrly when you consider that the 'big' universities have been getting many times the research funding of new universities in the last 10 years. In this period, despite HEFCE constantly raising the funding bar (meaning many new university researchers keep missing out on funding), many new universities have maintained and improved their quality of research. It is right that money is finally trickling down to reflect this effort and to redress the imbalance. Even with this adjustment, new universities will only revieve a fraction of the amounts received by Oxford etc. I understand that the old guard are worried, but they should be thanking their lucky stars that 2* (international standard) research wasn't financially rewarded as much as it could have been. If that had happened they would have been looking at much bigger changes in funding. You could turn the article round and ask have new universities been diddled out of their 2* money?!

  • Dr Alan Hunt 14 March, 2009

    Am I the only one who seriously questions the basis of the figures in this analysis? Looking at Southampton, for example: it is true that the funding in 2008-9 was based on the RAE 2001, but in 2008 our RAE submission contained 21% more research active individuals. We didn't suddenly acquire 191 extra researchers on the final day of the RAE census but rather over the 7 years! The effective fall per researcher has been a progressive phenomenon between RAEs. If you divide the difference in funding of £3,284,463 by the number of researchers declared during RAE 2008 (1098) then the difference per researcher on the ground since this time a year ago is a fall of £2,991. Still a fall but a figure closer to reality! Interestingly, Imperial's fall per researcher on that basis is £4,094 and UCL actually gain £205 per research active individual. It makes the table look quite different but doesn't make the headlines so dramatic I suppose!

  • Professor Mark McDermott 16 March, 2009

    It is perplexing that the article begins with the heading that `Amount for elite staff cut by £6,000'. The funding allocations, as we all know, are based on the Research Assessment Exercise 2008 quality audit. So, the conclusion to be drawn is that excellence in RAE2008 is more widely distributed than in RAE2001, i.e. that excellent researchers are in fact to be found more far afield, than amongst a small, self-designated premier league of HEIs. This is hardly surprising in the digital age, where complex information can be made available, analysed, written up & submitted for peer review irrespective of whether one is in the middle of a metropolis or on top of a mountain in Snowdonia. Technology has lessened the neccessity to agglomerate researchers to support excellence, despite the need to foster interdisciplinarity. It is a force ofcourse that runs counter to successive government's belief in the need to establish centres of excellence on a scale that can compete with those in north-America, and increasingly in India and China. We should remember, however, that U.K. research punches above its weight in terms of the proportion of world-wide knowledge that it produces. So, I hope U.K. academia can avoid the in-fighting that often accompanies claims to membership of an `elite'. Such elitism is divisive and not a good use of our collective effort.

Comment on this story

Post your comment

You must fill in all fields marked *

12 March, 2009

 

Main site navigation:
Secondary site navigation:
Main site navigation end
-
 
-
Abacus E-media
Abacus e-Media
St. Andrews Court
St. Michaels Road
Portsmouth
PO1 2JH
-

Advertisement