Category: PGR

  • A more focused research system does not by itself solve structural deficits

    A more focused research system does not by itself solve structural deficits

    Financial pressures across the higher education sector have necessitated a closer look at the various incomes and associated costs of the research, teaching and operational streams. For years, larger institutions have relied upon the cross-subsidy of their research, primarily from overseas student fees – a subsidy that is under threat from changes in geopolitics and indeed our own UK policies on immigration and visa controls.

    The UK is now between a rock and a hard place: how can it support the volume and focus of research needed to grow the knowledge-based economy of our UK industrial strategy, while also addressing the financial deficits that even the existing levels of research create?

    Several research leaders have recently been suggesting that a more efficient research system is one where higher education institutions focus on their strengths and collaborate more. But while acknowledging that efficiency savings are required and the relentless growth of bureaucracy – partly imposed by government but also self-inflicted within the HEIs – can be addressed, the funding gulf is far wider than these savings could possibly deliver.

    Efficiency savings alone will not solve the scale of structural deficits in the system. Furthermore, given that grant application success rates are systemically below 20 per cent and frequently below ten or even five per cent, the sector is already only funding its strongest applications. Fundamentally, currently demand far outstrips supply, leading to inefficiency and poor prioritisation decisions.

    Since most of the research costs are those supporting the salaries and student stipends of the researchers themselves, significant cost-cutting necessitates a reduction in the size of the research workforce – a reduction that would fly in the face of our future workforce requirement. We could leave this inevitable reduction to market forces, but the resulting disinvestment will likely impact the resource intensive subjects upon which much of our future economic growth depends.

    We recognise also that solutions cannot solely rely upon the public purse. So, what could we do now to improve both the efficiency of our state research spend and third-party investment into the system?

    What gets spent

    First of all, the chronic underfunding of the teaching of UK domestic students cannot continue, as it puts even further pressure on institutional resources. The recent index-linking of fees in England was a brave step to address this, but to maintain a viable UK research and innovation system, the other UK nations will also urgently need to address the underfunding of teaching. And in doing so we must remain mindful of the potential unintended consequences that increased fees might have on socio-economic exclusion.

    Second, paying a fair price for the research we do. Much has been made of the seemingly unrestricted “quality-related” funding (QR, or REG in Scotland) driven by the REF process. The reality is that QR simply makes good the missing component of research funding which through TRAC analysis is now estimated to cover less than 70 per cent of the true costs of the research.

    It ought to be noted that this missing component exists over all the recently announced research buckets extending across curiosity-driven, government-priority, and scale-up support. The government must recognise that QR is not purely the funding of discovery research, but rather it is the dual funding of research in general – and that the purpose of dual funding is to tension delivery models to ensure HEI efficiency of delivery.

    Next, there is pressing a need for UKRI to focus resource on the research most likely to lead to economic or societal benefit. This research spans all disciplines from the hardest of sciences to the most creative of the arts.

    Although these claims are widely made within every grant proposal, perhaps the best evidence of their validity lies in the co-investment these applications attract. We note the schemes such as EPSRC’s prosperity partnerships and their quantum technology hubs show that when packaged to encompass a range of technology readiness levels (TRL), industry is willing to support both low and high TRL research.

    We would propose that across UKRI more weighting is given to those applications supported by matching funds from industry or, in the case of societal impact, by government departments or charities. The next wave of matched co-funding of local industry-linked innovation should also privilege schemes which elicit genuine new industry investment, as opposed to in-kind funding, as envisaged in Local Innovation Partnership Funds. This avoids increasing research volume which is already not sustainable.

    The research workforce

    In recent times, the UKRI budgets and funding schemes for research and training (largely support for doctoral students) have been separated from each other. This can mean that the work of doctoral students is separated from the cutting-edge research that they were once the enginehouse of delivering. This decoupling means that the research projects themselves now require allocated, and far more expensive, post-doctoral staff to deliver. We see nothing in the recent re-branding of doctoral support to “landscape” and “focal” awards that is set to change this disconnect.

    It should be acknowledged that centres for doctoral training were correctly introduced nearly 20 years ago to ensure our students were better trained and better supported – but we would argue that the sector has now moved on and graduate schools within our leading HEIs address these needs without need for duplication by doctoral centres.

    Our proposal would be that, except for a small number of specific areas and initiatives supported by centres of doctoral training (focal awards) and central to the UK’s skills need, the normal funding of UKRI-supported doctoral students should be associated with projects funded by UKRI or other sources external to higher education institutions. This may require the reassignment of recently pooled training resources back to the individual research councils, rebalanced to meet national needs.

    This last point leads to the question of what the right shape of the HEI-based research-focused workforce is. We would suggest that emphasis should be placed on increasing the number of graduate students – many of whom aspire to move on from the higher education sector after their graduation to join the wider workforce – rather than post-doctoral researchers who (regrettably) mistakenly see their appointment as a first step to a permanent role in a sector which is unlikely to grow.

    Post-doctoral researchers are of course vital to the delivery of some research projects and comprise the academic researchers of the future. Emerging research leaders should continue to be supported through, for example, future research leader fellowships, empowered to pursue their own research ambitions. This rebalancing of the research workforce will go some way to rebalancing supply and demand.

    Organisational change

    Higher education institutions are hotbeds of creativity and empowerment. However, typical departments have an imbalanced distribution of research resources where appointment and promotion criteria are linked to individual grant income. While not underestimating the important leadership roles this implies, we feel that research outcomes would be better delivered through internal collaborations of experienced researchers where team science brings complementary skills together in partnership rather than subservience.

    This change in emphasis requires institutions to consider their team structures and HR processes. It also requires funders to reflect these changes in their assessment criteria and selection panel working methods. Again, this rebalancing of the research workforce would go some way to addressing supply and demand while improving the delivery of the research we fund.

    None of these suggestions represent a quick fix for our financial pressures, which need to be addressed. But taken together we believe them to be a supportive step, helping stabilise the financial position of the sector, while ensuring its continuing contribution to the UK economy and society. If we fail to act, the UK risks a disorderly reduction of its research capability at precisely the moment our global competitors are accelerating.

    Source link

  • Why is it so difficult to make reasonable adjustments when assessing disabled PGRs?

    Why is it so difficult to make reasonable adjustments when assessing disabled PGRs?

    Universities are required under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for disabled students. While it’s often much clearer how to do this for undergraduate students and postgraduate taught students who have coursework and written exams – for example, by giving them extra time or a scribe – support for postgraduate research (PGR) students is far behind.

    Many universities and staff are less clear how to make adjustments for PGRs during supervision, when reading drafts of thesis chapters, and then for the traditional oral viva, which is problematic for many as it relies on instantaneous cognitive processing, fluency and other skills. The Abrahart vs University of Bristol case, in which a student died by suicide after being refused reasonable adjustments to a mode of assessment, highlighted just how critical this issue has become.

    Some universities and academics have expressed concerns that making adjustments for disabled PGR students will somehow “disadvantage” non-disabled students. This misunderstands the provisions of the Equality Act. Reasonable adjustments are a unique legal duty in relation to disability which go some way towards reducing the barriers that disabled people encounter on a daily basis.

    Cultural barriers

    Cultural beliefs – including that PGR study is “supposed to be difficult”, that overcoming the struggle is part of the achievement of obtaining a doctorate, and that adjustments devalue the doctorate – all contribute to unhelpful attitudes towards disabled PGRs and institutions meeting their legal obligations. The still widely held view that a doctorate is training the next generations of academics, limited oversight on progression, lack of consistent training for examiners and supervisors, and the closed-door nature of the viva indicate the cultural nature of many of the barriers.

    The recent work within universities on research culture, equality, diversity and inclusion, and widening participation has in many cases focused on everything other than disability. Where disability is considered, it’s often in relation to neurodivergence. Neurodivergent people may find themselves objects of fascination or considered difficult and a problem to be solved, rarely simply as human beings trying to navigate their way through a society which seems to have suddenly noticed they exist but is still reluctant to make the necessary changes.

    At the PhD viva, often the centring of the examiners’ experience takes priority – rigid arrangements, and the presumed importance of meeting examiners’ expectations, appear very much as priorities, leaving disabled PhD students without a voice or agency or made to feel demanding for simply suggesting they have legal rights which universities must meet.

    Mode of assessment or competence standard?

    The Disabled Students Commitment Competence Standards Guide clarifies that the Equality Act’s reference to the duty to make reasonable adjustments to any provision, criterion or practice (PCP) which places disabled students at a substantial (i.e. more than minor or trivial) disadvantage applies to modes of assessment. It is an indictment of entrenched cultural attitudes in the sector that it took the death of a student after being denied adjustments she was legally entitled to for this distinction to be clarified.

    Many in HE defend the current approach to PhD assessment as being a necessary way of assessing the types of skills a PGR would need as an academic. However, the QAA level 8 descriptors don’t specify a particular mode of assessment, or that the ability to communicate “ideas and conclusion clearly and effectively to specialist and non-specialist audiences” relates to academic contexts either solely or primarily, nor do they specify that assessment relates to whether or not examiners believe the candidate is “ready” for employment as a lecturer.

    The purpose of PhD assessment is to assess whether a candidate meets the assessment criteria to be awarded a doctoral degree. While the question as to whether these level 8 descriptors remain appropriate to assess a PhD may be valid, introducing additional unspoken criteria such as assumptions about academic career readiness is unacceptable for all students, but particularly so for disabled PGRs due to the constant demands on them and cognitive load required to navigate an already unclear system.

    Unhelpfully, the QAA characteristics statement for doctoral degrees asserts that “all doctoral candidates experience a similar format – that is, an assessment of the thesis followed by the closed oral examination.” This could conflict with the legal requirement to adjust assessment for disabled and neurodivergent students, and is despite the Quality Code on Assessment reflecting the importance of inclusive assessment which allows every student to demonstrate their achievements, “with no group or individual disadvantaged”.

    Sharing this reasoning and information is fundamental to changing entrenched and often misunderstandings in the sector about what we’re actually assessing in the PhD viva and how to approach that assessment.

    What needs to be done?

    Making adjustments for individual PGR vivas is time consuming when many adjustments could be made as standard (a “universal design” approach), releasing time to focus on making a smaller number of less commonly required adjustments. Many adjustments are easy to make: holding the viva in a ground floor room, linking to already existing accessibility information, limits on the length of the viva with compulsory breaks, ensuring there are toilets nearby, training for examiners, and options about the viva format.

    While many PGRs are content with the traditional oral viva, others would prefer a written option (for many years the standard option in Australasia) or a hybrid option with written questions in advance of a shorter oral viva. Universities often raise AI assistance as being a reason that an oral viva is necessary. However, this is best addressed through policies, training and declarations of authorship, rather than relying solely on an oral viva.

    Feedback from delegates at a webinar on the topic of inclusive viva which we delivered – hosted by UKCGE – underlined the need for clarity of expectations, standard approaches to adjustments, and training for everyone involved in the PGR journey to understand what the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 are. Adjustments for “visible” disabilities are often easier to understand and make – it would be difficult to deny a deaf PGR a British Sign Language interpreter.

    Where disabilities are less visible, cultural attitudes seem more difficult to shift to make these needed adjustments. Revisions to sector documents, such as the doctoral degrees characteristics statement are also overdue.

    Put simply, it’s not reasonable to deny a student the award of a degree that their research warrants due to an inappropriate mode of assessment.

    The authors would like to thank Charlotte Round, Head of Service for Disability Support at the University of Nottingham, for her involvement.

    Source link

  • More comprehensive EDI data makes for a clearer picture of staff social mobility

    More comprehensive EDI data makes for a clearer picture of staff social mobility

    Asking more granular EDI questions of its PGRs and staff should be a sector priority. It would enable universities to assess the diversity of their academic populations in the same manner they have done for our undergraduate bodies – but with the addition of a valuable socio-economic lens.

    It would equip us more effectively to answer basic questions regarding how far the diversity in our undergraduate community leads through to our PGT, PGR and academic populations, as well as see where ethnicity and gender intersect with socio-economic status and caring responsibilities to contribute to individuals falling out of (or choosing to leave) the “leaky” academic pipeline.

    One tool to achieve this is the Diversity and Inclusion Survey (DAISY), a creation of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Science and Health (EDIS) and the Wellcome Trust. This toolkit outlines how funders and universities can collect more detailed diversity monitoring data of their staff and PGRs as well as individuals involved in research projects.

    DAISY suggests questions regarding socio-economic background and caring responsibilities that nuance or expand upon those already in “equal opportunities”-type application forms that exist in the sector. DAISY asks, for example, whether one has children and/or adult dependents, and how many of each, rather than the usual “yes” or “no” to “do you have caring responsibilities?” Other questions include the occupation of your main household earner when aged 14 (with the option to pick from categories of job type), whether your parents attended university before you were 18, and whether you qualified for free school meals at the age of 14.

    EDI data journeys across the sector

    As part of an evolving data strategy, UCAS already collects several DAISY data points on their applicants, such as school type and eligibility for free school meals, with the latter data point is gaining traction across the university sector and policy bodies as a meaningful indicator for disadvantage.

    Funders are interested in collecting more granular EDI data. The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), for example, invested around £800 million in the creation of Biomedical Research Centres in the early 2020s. The NIHR encouraged the collection of DAISY data specifically on both the researchers each centre would employ and the individuals they would research upon, in the belief (see theme four of their research inclusion strategy) that a diverse researcher workforce will make medical science more robust.

    The diversity monitoring templates attached to recent UKRI funding schemes similarly highlight the sector’s desire for more granular EDI data. UKRI’s Responsive Mode Scheme, for example, requires institutions to benchmark their applicants against a range of protected characteristics, including ethnicity, gender, and disability, set against the percentage of the “researcher population” at the institution holding those characteristics. The direction of travel in the sector is clear.

    What can universities do?

    Given the data journeys of UCAS and funding bodies, it is sensible and proportionate, therefore, that universities ask more granular EDI questions of their PGRs and their staff. Queen Mary began doing so, using the DAISY toolkit as guide, for its staff and PGRs in October 2024, alongside work to capture similar demographic data in the patient population involved in clinical trials supported by Queen Mary and Barts NHS Health Trust.

    While we have excellent diversity in our undergraduate community, we see less in our PGR and staff communities, and embedding more granular data collection into our central HR processes for staff and admissions processes for PGRs allows us to assess (eventually, at least, given adequate disclosure rates) how far the diversity in our undergraduate population leads through to our PGT, PGR and academic population.

    Embedding the collection of more granular EDI data into central HR and admissions systems required collaboration across Queen Mary’s Research Culture, EDI, and HR teams, creating new information forms and systems to collect the data while ensuring it could be linked to other datasets. The process was also quickened by a clinical trials unit in our Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry who had piloted the collection of this data already on a smaller scale, providing a proof of concept for our colleagues in HR.

    EDI data and the PGR pipeline

    Securing the cooperation of our HR and EDI colleagues was made easier thanks to our doctoral college, who had already incorporated the collection of more granular EDI data into an initiative aimed at increasing the representation of Black British students in our PGR community: the STRIDE programme.

    Standing for “Summer Training Research Initiative to Support Diversity and Equity”, STRIDE gives our BAME undergraduate students the opportunity to undertake an eight-week paid research project over the summer, alongside a weekly soft skills programme including presentation and leadership training. Although the programme has run annually since 2020 with excellent outcomes (almost 70 per cent of the first cohort successfully applied to funded research programmes), incorporating more granular EDI questions into the application form for the 2024 cohort of 425 applicants highlighted intersectional barriers to postgraduate study faced by our applicants that would have been obscured had we only collected basic EDI data.

    Among other insights, 47 per cent of applicants to STRIDE had been eligible at some point for free school meals. This contrasts with our broader undergraduate community, 22 per cent of whom were eligible for free school meals. Some 55 per cent of applicants reported that neither of their parents went to university, and 27 per cent reported that their parents had routine or semi-routine manual jobs. Asking questions beyond the usual suite of EDI questions allows us here to picture more clearly the socio-economic and cultural barriers that intersect with ethnicity to make entry into postgraduate study more difficult for members of underrepresented communities.

    The data chimed with internal research we conducted in 2021, where we discovered that many of the key barriers to our undergraduates engaging in postgraduate research were the same as those who were first in family to go to university, namely lack of family understanding of a further degree and lack of understanding regarding the financial benefits of completing a postgraduate research degree.

    Collecting more granular EDI data will allow us to understand and support diversity that is intersectional, while enabling more effective assessment of whether Queen Mary is moving in the right direction in terms of making research degrees (and research careers) accessible to traditionally underrepresented communities at our universities. But collecting such data on our STRIDE applicants makes little sense without equivalent data from our PGR and academic community – hence Queen Mary’s broader decision to embed DAISY data collection into its systems.

    The potential of DAISY

    As Queen Mary’s experience with STRIDE demonstrates, nuancing our collection of EDI data comes with clear potential. Given adequate disclosure rates, collecting more granular EDI data makes possible more effective intersectional analyses of our PGRs and staff across our sector, and helps understand the social mobility of our PGRs and staff with more nuance, leading to a clearer image of the journey that those from less privileged social backgrounds and/or those with caring responsibilities face across our sector.

    More broadly, universities will always be crucial catalysts of social mobility, and collecting more granular data on socio-economic background alongside the personal data they already collect – such as gender, ethnicity, religion and other protected characteristics – is a logical and necessary next step.

    Source link

  • Positive change for disabled researchers might need managing and leading

    Positive change for disabled researchers might need managing and leading

    Among the university initiatives which aim to amplify traditionally marginalised voices, disabled researchers are now throwing their metaphorical hats into the ring.

    I am a member of a disabled researchers’ network and in a recent meeting, the question we asked ourselves were central to the raison d’être of the group.

    How do we position ourselves? How do we manage the strength that comes with having a diverse group, while ensuring that all voices are heard equally? And – perhaps most crucially – what are the positive outcomes towards which we can orientate our group and our activities, within the existing structures?

    Perhaps thinking about this via the lens of the overused yet helpful notion of “leadership and management” could help to clarify the tensions and dichotomies facing disabled students and inform next steps.

    Vital functions

    Leadership and management have separate and “vital functions” within any organisation – management is focused on efficient and reliable operations day-to-day, while leadership drives an organisation into the future.

    These two concepts, so often put together and both crucial for an organisation to flourish, in some ways work against each other – as Professor Tony Bush explains,

    Managerial leadership is focused on managing existing activities successfully rather than visioning a better future.

    “Management” inevitably involves some element of instinctive resistance to change which threatens to destabilise routines and known outcomes. In my experience and from the personal anecdotes of disabled colleagues, it is apparent that we have experienced inflexibility in processes and resistance to adjustments which would have facilitated our research activities.

    Maybe at least some of this resistance comes from a fear that equilibrium would be disrupted; giving the benefit of the doubt seems helpful in avoiding the “us” and “them” stance which is an obstacle to positive collaboration and moving beyond the past to the desired future.

    The reality is that this is difficult to navigate. When our voice is an unexpected interruption, when the thorny issue of inclusive practices is raised, relationships can be affected. How can we lead the research environment within HE towards being more truly inclusive without ruffling too many feathers?

    Leadership demands the flexibility to move towards future aims, or in the words of Roselinde Torres, being:

    …courageous enough to abandon a practice that has made you successful in the past.

    While we might not want the HE sector to “abandon” all current practices, it is apparent that change is needed to ensure true equality of access and opportunity. A model of “success” which marginalises disabled researchers is not true success; our argument is difficult to refute, and I’m sure nobody would openly do so.

    However, agreement in principle is not the same as action in practice.

    Fine by me

    Everyone readily agrees with the idea of an inclusive research environment; but not everyone is proactively engaged in making this a reality, particularly when it disrupts the status quo.

    Perhaps the crucial difference in perspective between the manager and the leader is that of immediate deliverables versus long-term strategic outcomes; and perhaps this can be used to consider the collective in the wider context of the university.

    As disabled researchers, we are our own “leaders”; a label we may not seek out or desire, but which nonetheless can be seen in our daily activities, thought processes and planning.

    We have to think ahead, mitigating barriers which non-disabled researchers simply do not have to navigate; and this difference is nobody’s fault, but it is useful to be aware of it in this discussion. This art of looking ahead is identified by Torres as one of the necessary traits for effective leadership; she explains:

    “Great leaders are not head-down. They see around corners, shaping their future, not just reacting to it.

    My point isn’t to suggest that disabled researchers are somehow better leaders than their non- disabled colleagues; but we have developed certain characteristics out of sheer necessity. As disabled researchers, indeed disabled individuals, we have to “lead” from the outset to overcome the barriers which are our daily reality.

    Encountering barriers

    We may face the uncertainty which comes with managing a chronic, long-term condition which dictates whether we are well enough to work on a specific date, at a specific time, and over which we have no control. For me, my modus operandi is to work ahead of every deadline – often perceived as being over-competitive – because I know that I may suddenly be forced into a work hiatus which, without this buffer, would put me behind.

    We may encounter access issues – workspaces, and transport to those workspaces, which do not meet our most basic needs. Physical barriers – often assumed to be the most readily addressed – still exist. We may need to call ahead to ensure that we can simply get into the room – let alone have a seat at the table. In 2024, it feels like we should be further along than this.

    As disabled researchers, in work and in life, we are in strategy mode constantly; looking ahead around every corner; planning for the next barrier we need to demolish if we are to continue moving forward.

    We are forced to strategize – even when we don’t want to. Therein, perhaps, lies the rub.

    Because we are proactive in reducing our barriers, we have an expectation or at the very least a hope that our colleagues, managers and in the broadest sense our employers will adopt the same stance.

    When this is reduced to box-ticking exercises rather than a meaningful, consultative approach, this damages morale. When we must ask for adjustments – sometimes more than once – resentment builds; and if adjustments are promised then not delivered, relationships can suffer irrevocable damage.

    We lead because we have to

    Yet we continue to “lead” on this out of necessity; our voices are loudest on these issues for the simple reason that it impacts us the most, especially when organisations don’t get it right. From the discussions we’ve had within our network, I know that this can be a lonely experience, with researchers feeling marginalised, unable to voice their concerns to a listening ear, and finding that speaking out can result in feeling left out.

    So how can we move collectively towards change? Perhaps we can take inspiration from the eight-step change model proposed by leading business consultant John Kotter. Here, a structured approach is described which will move a workforce collectively towards change.

    Perhaps one of the most useful elements of Kotter’s framework is Step 2: “Build a guiding coalition”. What does this mean? It means that individuals of influence and power within an organisation need to be involved in change, or it may be rejected. This is a viable model: disabled researchers partnering with stakeholders across the sector to promote our vision of a fairer, more equitable research environment where lived experience is valued and the need for a continuous programme of improvement is recognised.

    When all is said and done, this isn’t really a radical proposition. There are outcomes we want to achieve, and we need partners to achieve them. We need our voice to be heard at a strategic level. We need champions for inclusion to be nominated across the HE sectors, with a clear remit to work with disabled researchers to enact meaningful change. Activism isn’t incompatible with collaborative working any more than research is.

    Both activism and research address a need, a gap in knowledge, a difficult dilemma, or an important issue, and ask the question: how can we do better, and why aren’t we doing better? This then leads to the next research question…and the next… and the next… and so ad infinitum.

    There is no limit to how much we can learn or improve, and there should be no end to our willingness to keep learning and improving. This is surely integral to the whole ethos of higher education. We need to have open communication; create opportunities for conversations which might be challenging; and cultivate curiosity about how we can better understand one another and facilitate inclusive working environments.

    Even in the most highly competitive business arenas, research has shown that a work culture which prioritises “psychological safety” – an environment where individuals feel secure enough to share their perspectives, both positive and negative – is the gold standard for employee productivity and happiness at work.

    A recent study involving the work-life balance and happiness of women working in the financial sector concluded that:

    …having diverse teams that can be honest allows for better outcomes.

    At the heart of the change we are seeking is simply the opportunity to be honest in an environment which encourages this. So let’s blur the boundary between leadership and management; let’s have honest, if sometimes challenging, conversations; and let’s embark on this journey together.

    Source link