Excellence comes through diversity

Research should be supported even in departments scoring less well in the RAE, says John Enderby.

Concentration and selectivity in university research funding has reached the right level. The health of the United Kingdom's science base could be damaged by more moves to concentrate research in centres of international excellence at the expense of university departments that achieve more modest ratings in the research assessment exercise.

Some people might not expect this verdict from the Royal Society, given our dedication to the pursuit of excellence in science. But the excellence of the UK's science is as much founded on the diversity of the higher education sector as it is on the fortunes of our outstanding stable of thoroughbred universities. The support of emerging or improving research efforts in departments that have not previously attained the highest ratings in the RAE ensures the dynamism and vitality that are the hallmarks of the UK science base.

Concentration and selectivity gained momentum in the 1980s. Growth in the higher education sector meant research funding could not be sustained on the basis of equal shares for all. The RAE was introduced to provide an element of selectivity that has, with each successive exercise, become increasingly severe and concentrated the bulk of funding in a smaller proportion of institutions.

To appreciate the extent to which it has controlled the distribution of funds, one should note that "units of assessment" that failed to achieve a rating of 3b or higher in 1996 no longer receive core funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England for research. In 1999-2000, 97 per cent of the £855 million Hefce gave for research was allocated according to the results of the last RAE in 1996. But only 4.5 per cent of this money was distributed to the 330 departments rated as 3b.

If this support were to be concentrated in a smaller number of departments, by excluding those achieving a rating of 3b in this year's RAE, for instance, genuine creativity may be squeezed out and UK research could suffer.

Increased selectivity has tended to draw attention to the achievements of large departments in traditional research universities. But scientific excellence is not restricted to these institutions. The health of the UK science base depends on the high quality of research across the country. This is reflected by the fact that fellows of the Royal Society are engaged in research at 34 universities outside the "golden triangle" of London, Oxford and Cambridge.

The Royal Society also counsels against further selectivity and concentration of postgraduate students in larger departments. Research training at PhD level is one of the most important outputs from university research and the society believes it is essential that the quality of the postgraduate experience should remain in the vanguard of developing international standards. Smaller departments might need assistance in broadening the research environment for PhD students. For instance, institutions may collaborate to provide taught courses and advanced courses. In some subjects, "research hotels" at national and international facilities are particularly valuable in this respect, and should not be seen merely as a way of providing access to expensive research equipment.

Despite these concerns, the Royal Society fully acknowledges the need for selectivity in research funding achieved through peer review. The administrative effort required to prepare for the RAE should not be described as excessive when one considers the value of the funds at stake. Nevertheless, Hefce should be encouraged to keep paperwork to a minimum and to ensure that staff working part time or juggling family commitments do not become victims of the assessment process.

The RAE is an effective method on which to base decisions about selectivity and concentration. Maybe we should spend less time scrutinising the mechanics of the RAE process and more deciding how its results should be used.

John Enderby is vice-president and physical secretary of the Royal Society. He chaired the working group that prepared the society's submission to the Hefce reviews of research policy and funding.