The countdown to the extinction of Engineering and Physical Sciences in the UK: 5 years left

There has been a sea change in the funding of engineering and physical sciences during my time in the UK. My perception of this change is that the community is less vibrant and it was only recently that I realised this perception has roots outside my local experience. This change is not specific to a particular University. It is large scale policy at work. 

During the 2005/6 year (the one I began work in the UK), the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) entertained 5138 proposals and funded 1477. By 2013/14 this had changed to 1918 proposals accepted and only 620 funded. This is an enormous drop. The number of awards and proposals were roughly 40% of what they were a decade before. 

In case there is confusion, consider the graph below.

This figure shows the number of proposals awarded in a particular year and if the trend continues, EPSRC will cease to fund proposals in about five years.

Let’s be clear about some things. This seems to be a bipartisan problem. It is unclear when the rot started, but it existed under Labour and continues under the Tory/Lib Dem coalition. 

What is driving this? EPSRC policy and a stagnation in total awarded funds. 

How does this work?

EPSRC adopted a policy that actively discourages submission of proposals by scientists whose proposals are unsuccessful. There is some merit in the concept. A proposal consisting of old and tired ideas just makes additional work in review and having it repeatedly submitted helps no one. On the other hand, many rejected proposals are not like this. Many are good ideas that a not funded due to lack of funds not because the ideas are no good. 

ESPRC has also tended to favour bigger awards – and make fewer of them. The figure below shows how this has played out over the last decade.

From this it is clear that where a typical award in 2004 might have been £250k, now it is closer to £650k. This is policy at work, not inflation.

In an environment where funding appears stagnant (£401M in 2004/5 and £366M in 2013/14) this all combines to mean that fewer ideas are being put forward and fewer submitted proposals are being funded.

The bottom line is that in 2013/14 the UK had 857 fewer fundable ideas than it did roughly a decade earlier. Where have those ideas gone?

Sack the REF

Tonight at midnight the results of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) will be released. In the lead up to REF, there have been a number of articles dealing with the REF:  whether it is fit for purpose, linking it peripherally to a culture of bullying in UKHE, and suggestions of whether its methods are sound.

The reality is worse than that and as a starting point it is worth looking at this earlier post. Nothing has appeared to change a mind since that was written. Today there are three points: 

The REF is a poor way to fund science.

The REF and science funding can yield tragic results.

The REF is the result of bad leadership in universities. 

One at a time. 

1) The REF gives money to organisations. Its use comes with limited restrictions. This has good and bad points.  For example, I was part of a REF unit that had some success in 2008. The money that followed that result came into the university and it was under no obligation to deliver that to me or any of the other members of the unit of assessment. This is good because it allows the money to be used strategically by the organisation. It is bad because it is really unlinked to the people or grouping that “earned” it. To use a previous analogy, if Roofing companies were funded by the public purse the way Universities are by the REF, a company with some excellence would have cash pumped into it and they do not have to make roofs with it. They could, for instance, use it to pay for people to write the next round of paperwork submitted to the REF. A taxpayer might look at that process cynically and ask, “roofs or paperwork?” I pay taxes, I know what I think. 

Rather, great research comes from great ideas and investment should follow those great ideas not the past history of a research organisation.

2) REF and the science funding regime in the UK can yield tragic results. I recently learned of the tragic case of Stefan Grimm. There are articles related to his suicide here and here and here. His case resonated because he is not so different from me. He was my age. Like me, he was a product of the Max Planck system. His research record is somewhat better than mine in terms of total citations but a similar h-index. In another place or time, I could have been facing similar pressure.

As another example, the University of Warwick has attracted the attention of UCU due to its plans to make staff redundant for not generating enough research income (not averaging over £90K/yr).

What is going on here? Yes, there is criticism due for the managers at specific organisations. Mostly they live in a rarefied world where their productivity (what they can nurture) is never questioned. For example, there is something to be said for asking the question of why a Professor (or Reader or Lecturer) is not submitted to the REF. But equally, where is the pressure on the upper parts of the food chain to create an environment nurturing the staff expected to produce those results. Are they hiring the right people? Are they not committed to the people they have hired long term for the ideas they generate? And so forth. Yes criticising the individual organisations is fair, but this is twigs and branches. There a forest.

Consider the following key figures provided by EPSRC (I am grateful for the transparency at EPSRC for making this data available). In 2005/6, EPSRC received 5138 grant proposals, funded 1477, and awarded £466 Million. In 2013/14, EPSRC received 1918 proposals, funded 620, and awarded £366 Million. This change comes with a staggering impact. There has been a drop of £100 million in the annual award and the number of awards has dropped by nearly 60%.  The system has changed so proposers are more cautious resulting in 62% fewer proposals. Further there is a trend to large centres and it is unclear how credit for such a centre gets dispersed. But in the climate left behind by this change, the managers at many institutions are beating starving horses. Times have changed and there are a lot of well fed bean counters. That is the forest and failure to recognise the problem and provide leadership will only produce more of these kinds of tragedies. 

Having lived through this change, I can feel it. The atmosphere was more vibrant and there was greater optimism a decade ago. The REF just reinforces this. While a unit of assessment leads to the generation of the income, the income goes to the organisation who use it as they see fit.

3) All of this leads to leadership or lack thereof. When I talk to colleagues few think the REF is a good thing. Few are aware of the impact of the revolutionary change to funding. Few discuss the process of nurturing and supporting staff. Few think the review process in REF is either efficient or particularly edifying. But all seem scared to speak. When I hear news of the great UK Universities it is things like Oxford may be allowed to charge more money (£16k/yr). Well done for them. They are not saying dispense with REF and move the money to research councils. They are not saying it should be distributed it into a large number of small grants (say £120k over 3-4 years) run competitively. Mostly they are saying nothing anyone needs to hear. 

When I listen to colleagues I hear unease and I hear admiration for Germany. Germany did away with fees but that is a topic for another day. Meanwhile in the UK, leadership and vision are often invoked but sadly lacking.

Note: I am grateful to a colleague who pointed out the issues relating to the RC councils. Fewer funded projects, larger grants and less money. I had missed this.

Sexual Harassment and the National union of Students

The National Union of Students has released a study of sexual harassment on University campuses in the UK (see here, here and here). The National Union of Students does some very good things for students and it is good to see the issue getting attention. 

The UK is not alone in having issues of sexual harassment as well as a wide range of gender issues. I can’t speak for any of the universities I have worked in but I can say some things about dealing with the issue as an individual member of staff. Some of what I have seen in my years is heartbreaking: young people dealing with abusive family members, partners, other students, and staff. The results range from inspirational resilience to tragedy and everything in between. 

Once the abuse and harassment happens it can be very hard to deal with, but there is more University leaders can be doing to shape the university environment to prevent it. The most effective is education about appropriate behaviour, codes of behaviour, and what to do when harassment occurs. We should be able to do this. We are educators.

For students and others affected by sexual harassment, here are some thoughts, suggestions, and advice.

Nearly all of us want to help. We can and do help students when the need arises. Most of us have seen a lot in our careers and we truly care about our students. Don’t be embarrassed or ashamed because of what someone else has done to you. It is not your fault. Unfortunately, abusive and predatory people are often very good at manipulating people and making it everyone’s fault but their own. Please do not let them make you think you are to blame.

If you want action taken against someone for harassment or abuse, go to the police. Whatever we would like to be, academics are not Police Constables nor are we a good substitute.  Much as we want to help, the police are a law enforcement organisation, a university is not. 

Through the police, the UK has some helpful procedures to tackle harassment. A good overview of the law may be found here. One item to be aware of is the so-called PIN notice (there is some information about them here and in the PDF linked to at the bottom of the page). The latter are felt to be most effective for first offenses where the person may not have known the behaviour might be considered harassing. They do not assign guilt or innocence, but, should the behaviour continue, the perpetrator cannot easily say they were unaware there was a problem. 

Women’s aide has some excellent resources. These are directed toward women but would also be valuable for men being harassed as well. 

Individual academic staff members do not normally have investigative powers (at least I am unaware of any examples to the contrary) within the remit of university codes of conduct. In my current role, the best I can do is to make those in more senior management roles (Heads of Department, Deans, etc) in the University aware of a problem. I cannot nor can most of my academic colleagues carry out harassment investigations. Sometimes this can be delegated to us, but this is unusual in my experience.

Those in more senior roles are usually there for academic or managerial reasons rather than because they are well trained in sexual harassment investigations. Depending on their career history they may be completely unprepared to investigate until they are asked to do so. 

Despite the prevalence indicated in the NUS survey, the number of instances of sexual harassment complaints is comparatively small. While I was in my management role (which I held for about 2 years), to my knowledge, no student in my area initiated a sexual harassment complaint. Not one. Cheating and plagiarism dominate the offenses investigated in Universities. Other Code of Behaviour proceedings are rare in my experience.

The issues that make harassment difficult to deal with in the Courts make them difficult to deal with in Universities. The nature of harassment is that it is often carried out in ways that leave little proof. This would include groping, verbal abuse, and related behaviours. Predatory individuals seem to understand that isolation favours them. Unless there is a recording in a security camera or similar proof, it is very difficult to take action. Difficult as it is, documentation is the key. If you think a security camera might hold evidence, report the problem quickly. CCTV recordings are often purged after a time. The sooner you report the event, the more likely it is the data will exist and you will be clearer about the dates and times of the event.

Please speak up. Go to the police. Go to the Senior Academics (Heads of Department, Deans and their equivalents). If you need advice, rank and file academics can help you get started, but in order to deal with the problem you have to speak up and formalise complaints.

Finally, one of my first experiences of the effect of sexual harassment in academia (it was not in the UK) was a young woman telling me about a senior member of staff. Like many, she had some specific vulnerabilities. She indicated that she had to change supervisors because her first one kept making inappropriate comments about his sex life and it made her uncomfortable. I asked if she had complained. She said she had not because she did not think it would help. I suggested she write a letter to the staff member’s manager. She did not think it would help. I said that a single letter might not help, having one on file would help if further cases came to light, even if she herself did not want to proceed. She reiterated that she did not think it would help and that writing a letter could get into the wrong hands and leave her in a more vulnerable position. I suggested she write a letter to me which I would keep private but could indicate it existed if more cases came to light. She decided not to do this. I understand and respect her choice and admire her for changing supervisors despite her vulnerabilities, but it is tragic all the same.

So, thank you NUS. Please keep trying.

League Tables and the Bias of the Neanderthal Brain

The Silly Season continues in Universities as the talking points and marketing material are generated. Leagues table updates are out and everyone rushes to interpret the last data point. The disease propagates from the League table publishers to the universities, the government, the media and Mr and Mrs Somewhat-above-average. What is so silly? That the last data point is interpreted at the expense of longer term better data sets. If you do this, remember...

The Excursions May Be Great but Mostly They Stay the Same. Looking again at the data set of 5 selected Universities (Derby, Nottingham, Nottingham Trent, Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam) it is worth considering the 5 year average, the median, and the standard deviation as well. In all cases the median values are very close to the averages and while there is some skew (asymmetry) to the data mostly they are just randomly fluctuating about a mean.

University	Average League Table Position	Standard Deviation	Median
Derby	100	8.1	103
Nottingham	20	3.1	19
Nottingham Trent	56	5.6	55
Sheffield	26	1.1	26
Sheffield Hallam	69	5.4	68

 If you are an academic manager celebrating a single year rise in league table position, you are probably celebrating random fluctuations. If that is what you are into and that makes you feel better about yourself, well... with all due respect, you are an idiot.

As a student, if you make a decision based on a University showing a large one year jump in league table position, you may be disappointed in subsequent years. That university may drop back in following years. It is unfair that you are being marketed to in this way. As an Academic, I am sorry. The best I can do is encourage you to be careful and to point out the dark side to this behaviour. Universities using league table results to promote their wares do so with a bias befitting the Neanderthal brainstem. This systematic bias is unworthy a modern Institution of higher learning.

University marketing materials use this material ONLY when it is in their favour to do so. They do not give equal weight to downward results. If you listen, at best you are making a decision on a biased presentation of flimsy data because over 5 years or so, they are reasonably stable about a mean value. If they generally stay the same while you are earning your degree, you should ignore league tables and make your decision in other ways.

League tables: Performance today is not performance tomorrow.

It is silly season in Universities. It is the time of year when the league table updates come out and universities start interpreting that last data point. This is one of several posts on the disease visited upon UK higher education. Yes, I am talking to you at the guardian and you at the Complete University Guide. 

Performance today is not performance tomorrow. It takes 4-5 years from the time a student chooses a university and when they graduate. League table position varies over that time. Consider 5 universities: Derby, Nottingham, Nottingham Trent, Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam. These have been chosen because they are all close by and are within about 50 miles of each other.

University	Average League Table Position	Range	Range as percent of average
Derby	100	21	21
Nottingham	20	7	35
Nottingham Trent	56	13	23
Sheffield	26	3	11
Sheffield Hallam	69	14	20

These data mean that over 5 years a University’s league table position may vary greatly both in absolute and real terms. These can be very large even in a single year.  Northampton jumped up 39 places 2013-2014. The Royal Agricultural University dropped 32 places 2014-2015. Really. These changes are meaningless either way. Having seen the inside of many Universities, I can assure you real change mostly happens slowly and mostly no one notices. 

Take home message: If you are making a decision about your choice of University based on 20-30 league table positions, you are making a bad decision. If you are evaluating your institution based on a single year's upward or downward change in league table position, you are likely doing it badly.