Heif concentration provokes mission group ire

September 20, 2012

The decision to limit an additional £6 million of Higher Education Innovation Fund cash to just 12 institutions has angered some sector leaders.

Plans were announced on 13 September to allocate the one-off funding to the "highest performing universities in knowledge exchange".

The move means that the Higher Education Funding Council for England will award an extra £500,000 each to the 12 institutions judged to be the best performers using a formula based on the income each derived from knowledge exchange during the previous three years.

But Libby Hackett, chief executive of the University Alliance, told Times Higher Education that the group had already written to the government asking it to review the decision, adding that Heif funding was already distributed to the best-performing universities.

She added that although additional investment was welcome, "we are strongly opposed to the suggestion that this should be given to a small group of universities without any evidence base for such concentration of funding".

"No justification has been given for why the additional income should not be distributed according to the existing formula for Heif," Ms Hackett said.

Her views were echoed by Pam Tatlow, chief executive of Million+.

"This allocation is disappointing, but it confirms that the policy of hyperselectivity which the government has applied to research funding since 2010 is now being applied to Heif," she said.

The funding, found from efficiency savings in the science and research budget, will be split between University College London, Imperial College London, King's College London and the universities of Birmingham, Cambridge, Hertfordshire, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Oxford and Southampton. It means that allocations for these institutions will exceed the £2.85 million cap currently applied to Heif funding.

Last year, Hefce controversially removed Heif funding for institutions whose knowledge-exchange income would have qualified them for grants under £250,000 and removed a capacity-building component of its funding formula.

Specialist institutions complained that the move was unfair to universities that generate low income but high returns on investment from knowledge exchange.

elizabeth.gibney@tsleducation.com.

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

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
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Most Commented

Daniel Mitchell illustration (29 June 2017)

Academics who think they can do the work of professional staff better than professional staff themselves are not showing the kind of respect they expect from others

celebrate, cheer, tef results

Emilie Murphy calls on those who challenged the teaching excellence framework methodology in the past to stop sharing their university ratings with pride

A podium constructed out of wood

There are good reasons why some big names are missing from our roster

Senior academics at Teesside University put at risk of redundancy as summer break gets under way

Thorns and butterflies

Conditions that undermine the notion of scholarly vocation – relentless work, ubiquitous bureaucracy – can cause academics acute distress and spur them to quit, says Ruth Barcan