An unsure vet

March 20, 2008

The possibility of universities "capping" or otherwise restricting - "vetting", "pre-selecting" - grant applications is clearly now on the horizon ("REF may lead to restrictions on grant applications", 13 March). I wonder, though, if all the implications of this have been thought through.

In the first place, how many universities genuinely have the expertise (ie, duplication of top-class staff) to be able to do it properly? Career pro vice-chancellors are not likely to be up to the task across the range of disciplines or at the level of specialist knowledge required, so who will do the vetting?

Second, in the case of, say, a scientist (so far it is mainly scientists, but that may change) whose research, career and employability are entirely dependent on securing funding, if a university committee declines to allow an application to go forward, does that not open the door to legal action?

Third, if promotions are related to the capturing of grants (and they already are), will there not be a flood of appeals against both the refusals of university committees and the subsequent rejection of promotion applications?

Finally: do universities actually have the legal authority to debar staff from making applications? There will certainly be academic freedom issues somewhere along the line, too. Fun and games ahead, then.

David Trotter, Professor of French, Department of European languages, Aberystwyth University.

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most commented

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October


Featured jobs