Martin Henson

Research Eh? Framework ...

In the Times Higher, Lord Drayson, the Science Minister, is reported as saying “We believe that scientists have a duty – particularly when they are funded by taxpayers – to engage in the public arena, to engage in communication of the challenges and the potential ethical concerns about their science …”. These are sentiments with which it would be pretty hard to disagree; but the quote goes on: “… and that will be included in the REF”.

The RAE has always been contentious territory, but for all its faults I’m happier for us to be scrutinized and evaluated on the basis of an in-depth review than on the basis of dodgy citation counts, off-the-cuff peer profiling, and historical records of clutches of Nobel prizes. In short, RAE judgements were intended to be about research excellence, and the measures employed were largely justifiable in this regard. As such, the pain and effort of preparing and submitting to the exercise is at least rewarded by useful conclusions – at least for Universities, like Essex, that are highly regarded.

Lord Drayson might reflect that research excellence is an international currency – except for derision, how exactly does he think top US institutions, for example, will view a notion of excellence that, in the words of the Times Higher, “… gives points for public outreach”? All Universities and academics should be, and largely are, aware of their broad civic responsibilities and duties – but meeting these has nothing at all to do with research excellence. Lord Drayson would be right to say that it is important that public engagement should be recognised and rewarded, but is quite wrong to say that it is important that it should be recognised “… in the assessment”. It has no place in a Research Excellence Framework, and neither have “interacting with the media” and “taking part in debates”. These are important enough, and should be undertaken by those of us having the necessary credentials of research excellence – but they are not part of what makes us excellent.

What Lord Drayson demonstrates of course, is that the REF is not about research excellence – it’s essentially about distributing funding to universities on the basis of compliance to the governments “social engineering” agenda for the academy.

Global Challenges ...

What makes a challenge global? Perhaps this role of mine is one of them! The question is topical here right now because the University of Essex has just selected a number of global challenge research projects to fund from its own resources. We're putting our money where our mouth is -- the University’s Strategic Vision specifically locates internationalization at the centre of the agenda – and pump-priming new internationally-focused projects is one way in which international research can be encouraged.

Looking through the applications that we considered, I was struck by several things and made a list of a few key observations that might be useful to think about when we announce a second round of applications.

1. There’s a difference between globally significant and globally engaged. Surely a global challenge has international significance – but the real benefits are those that create some change in the way we think about things and do things, in addition to changes that we can effect on others. You might be able to pursue a problem of global significance in the privacy of your own office – but for engagement you need to open that door pretty wide, and welcome whatever enters.

2. Global challenges are not just about solving problems – they’re about grasping opportunities too. The UN’s Millennium Development Goals are clearly relevant as indicators of some of the most pressing global issues (though I was struck by how few of the applications mentioned them) and set a useful context within which specific problems can be specified and addressed. Similarly, the big questions: the climate, economic instability, rights and justice, growth and sustainability, all throw up recognisable challenges. But there is a huge space of opportunities beyond these traditional challenges. How, for example, can we use advanced technologies to extend the reach, and develop new patterns, of applications, communication and exchange?

3. We asked for trans-disciplinary projects. Most of the applications were certainly interdisciplinary – but is there a genuine difference? Actually yes, there is. The paper "Transdisciplinary Research: characteristics, quandaries and qualities”, for example, by Wickson, Carew and Russell, outlines key differences between trans- and inter-disciplinary research. Focus: “… research … starts with a problem that is ‘in the world and actual’ as opposed to ‘in my head and conceptual’” – the emphasis is on solving real problems, not merely in a changed understanding of those problems; Methodology: trans-disciplinary research evolves an appropriate methodology for its task, rather than working within in a mixture of distinct methodologies and a variety of theoretical models -- as is often the case with interdisciplinary research; and Collaboration: the distinction here is the extent to which the subjects of research, the various stakeholders, are counted among the collaborators.

The successful projects recognised these three points to a large extent – and the prospects for some exciting research are enormous.