Tag: defence

  • Notes on Research Policy, Here and Abroad

    Notes on Research Policy, Here and Abroad

    Hi all. I thought I would take some time to have a chat about how research policy is evolving in other countries, because I think there are some lessons we need to learn here in Canada.

    One piece of news that struck me this week came from Switzerland, where the federal government is slashing the budget of the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) by 20%. If the Swiss, a technological powerhouse of a nation, with a broad left-right coalition in power and a more or less balanced budget, are cutting back on science like this, then we might all have to re-think the idea that being anti-Science is just a manifestation of right-wing populism. Higher education as a whole has some thinking to do.

    And right now, two countries are in fact re-thinking science quite a bit. In the UK, the new head of UK Research and Innovation (roughly, that country’s One Big Granting Council), has told institutions that they might need to start “doing fewer things but doing them well”, to which the President of Universities UK and vice-chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University Malcom-Press added that he was “hearing from government is that [they] don’t want to be investing in areas of research where we don’t have the quality and we don’t have the scale.” And, the kicker: “You can’t have hobbyist research that’s unfunded going on in institutions. We can’t afford it.”

    Over to Australia, where a few months ago the government set up a Strategic Examination of Research and Development, which released a discussion paper, held consultations and got feedback (which it published) and has now released six more “issue” papers for consultation which detail government thinking in many different and more detailed ways. If this sounds magical to you, it is because you are from Canada, where the standard practice for policymaking is to do everything behind closed doors and treat stakeholders like mushrooms (in the dark with only fecal matter for company) instead of a place where policy-making is treated as a serious endeavour in which public input and expert advice is welcomed. 

    For today’s purposes however, what matters is not process but policy. The review is seriously considering a number of fairly radical ideas, such as creating a few national “focus areas” for research funding, which would attract higher rates of overhead and requiring institutions to focus their efforts in one of these priority areas via mission-based compacts (which are sort of like Ontario’s Multi-Year Agreements, only they are meaningful) so as to build scale and specialization. 

    Whew.

    One thing that strikes me as odd about both the UK and Australian line of thinking is the idea that institutional specialization matters all that much. While lots of research is done at the level of the individual lab, most “big science” – the stuff people who dream about specialization have in mind when the talk about science – happens in teams which span many institutions, and more often than not across national borders as well. I get the sense that the phenomenon of institutional rankings have fried policy makers’ brains somewhat: they seem to think that the correct way to think about science is at the level of the institution, rather than labs or networks of laboratories. It’s kind of bananas. We can be glad that this kind of thinking has not infected Canadian policy too much because the network concept is more ingrained here.

    Which brings me to news here at home. 

    The rumour out of Ottawa is that in the next few months (still not clear if this is going to be fall 2025 or Spring 2026) there will be an announcement of a new envelope of money for research. But very definitely not inquiry-driven research. No, this is money which the feds intend to spend as part of the increase in “defence” spending which is supposed to rise to 2% of GDP by 2025-2026 and 5% by 2035. So, the kinds of things it will need to go to will be “security”, likely defined relatively generously. It will be for projects in space, protection of critical infrastructure, resiliency, maybe energy production, etc.  I don’t think this is going to be all about STEM and making widgets – there will be at least some room for social science in these areas and maybe humanities, too, though this seems to me a harder pitch to make. It is not clear from what I have heard if this is going to be one big pie or a series of smaller pies, divided up wither by mission or by existing granting council. But the money does seem to be on its way.

    Now before I go any further, I should point out that I have not heard anyone say that these new research envelopes are actually going to contain new money beyond what was spent in 2024-25.  As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, that would be hard to square with the government’s deficit-fighting commitments.

    In fact, if I had to guess right now, the best-case scenario would be that the Liberals will do this by taking some or all of the 88% of the Budget 2024 research commitment to the tri-councils and push it into these new envelopes (worst-case scenario: they nuke the 88% of the 2024 Budget commitment they haven’t yet spent and claw back money from existing commitments to make these new envelopes). 

    So, obviously no push here for institutional specialization, but where our debate echoes those of the UK and Australia is that all three governments seem to want to shift away from broad-based calls for inquiry driven research and toward more mission-based research in some vaguely defined areas of national priority.  I know this is going to irritate and anger many people, but genuinely I don’t see many politically practical alternatives right now. As I said back here: if defending existing inquiry-driven tri-council budgets is the hill the sector chooses to die on, we’re all going to be in big trouble. 

    No one will forcing individual researchers or institutions to be part of this shift to mission-driven research, but clearly that’s where the money is going to be. So, my advice to VPs Research is: get your ducks in a row on this now. Figure out who in your institution does anything that can even tangentially be referred to as “security-enhancing”. Figure out what kinds of pitches you might want to make.  Start testing your elevator pitches. There will be rewards to first movers in this area.

    Source link

  • In defence of university halls of residence

    In defence of university halls of residence

    During my five years living alongside 340 undergraduate students as a hall warden, I have become a firm believer that residential halls are powerful civic learning environments.

    This realisation did not come immediately; if anything, I saw my role as strictly pastoral rather than having any connections to learning and teaching.

    At first glance, the role of a warden has little to do with learning. The term, warden, is an outdated and often confusing title (we are in the process of changing it) to describe a staff member responsible for responding to high-level mental health and disciplinary matters and occasional residential life events.

    I initially approached my role with misplaced enthusiasm, intervening in all manner of student conflicts, leaving little room for their own responsibility. Finding a middle ground between complete non-intervention and excessive control proved a real challenge.

    Over time, I came to understand that effective support meant creating space for disagreement and face-to-face conflict resolution rather than solving problems on students’ behalf.

    Too shy shy

    When I first started, the complaints I received usually came because a student came to my front of house colleagues to alert them of their problem. Whereas now they arrive electronically through e-mail.

    It makes sense. It’s easier, quicker and also means students who may not be around during my formal working hours can make me aware of any issues.

    But sometimes the multiple reports I receive overnight detail seemingly minor problems like a roommate not turning off lights or leaving a window open.

    I think the ease with which students can complain, especially virtually, prevents students from developing crucial conflict resolution skills. Part of living amongst other people is learning to address disagreements. It’s not easy and it’s certainly not comfortable, but it does help you grow as a person.

    It forces you to connect with others you may not agree with – either because of various socio-economic backgrounds, religious views or with those who have different ideas of cleanliness from you.

    I have witnessed meaningful connections form across religious and gender identities, and social classes within student halls. For example, the son of a billionaire bonding with a flatmate who had spent summers as an agricultural labourer in fields in Lincolnshire. Two people who likely would not have crossed paths if they had not chosen to study at the same university.

    I’ve seen interfaith events attended by those with differing faiths or none at all leading to genuine friendships.

    These interactions lack formal learning objectives or assessment metrics, yet provide education that our lecture halls struggle to deliver. Providing the literal space for students to meet helps them develop social capital they cannot necessarily get in a classroom.

    Learning from home

    As a sector, we could do more to analyse and report on the civic benefits offered by halls of residence, and we are beginning to do this work at LSE.

    Most UK university halls operate under an outdated property management model, functioning more like luxury hotels than educational spaces. Some private accommodation companies have introduced luxury facilities where students from wealthy families isolate themselves in environments featuring swimming pools and designer furnishings. While aesthetically impressive, these spaces lack genuine community or learning opportunities.

    These approaches miss a crucial opportunity. Residence halls are sites of learning graduate skills, just as much as the formal classroom. Future employers want complex problem-solving and collaboration skill but the added value of being able to resolve conflict well lies beyond career preparation.

    Holding space

    In my view, modern universities have moved away from an integrated educational vision, focusing primarily on specialised knowledge instead. This fragmentation leaves students ill-equipped to interrogate complex questions and self-discovery.

    Part of this includes being able to navigate conflict constructively and understanding how to create community across differences.

    Residence halls provide spaces where intellectual, ethical, social, and practical dimensions of education can be reintegrated. Abstract concepts from seminars become concrete realities when negotiating shared living. Moral and civic education requires practical engagement with substantive questions about the common good.

    Living amongst peers is a way of acknowledging higher education as a collective endeavour rather than a timetable of classes and lectures.

    Is this overthinking spaces that should prioritise fun and exploration? I don’t think so. Our halls of residence aren’t peripheral to education. Properly reconceived, they could become central to what makes university education distinctive and valuable as higher education confronts an uncertain future.

    Source link

  • The politics of universities, defence, and R&D spending

    The politics of universities, defence, and R&D spending

    Rachel Reeves’ Spring Statement had little in it for the sector to celebrate.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility,(who provide independent analysis of the country’s finances), downgraded 2025 growth forecasts from two per cent to one per cent.

    For all the flurry of pro-growth activity since the election, the growth outlook to 2029 is basically unchanged. Economic growth and the much desired fiscal headroom (which gives the Government capacity for extra spending) still seem unlikely to materialise.

    For universities who are hoping for a crumb of additional funding at some point in the future, there was nothing to settle their nerves about the increasingly difficult financial position the Government finds itself in.

    Winners and losers

    It’s safe to say that some sectors are doing better than others. Defence is clearly one of the winners. Starmer’s commitment to increase defense spending (made before the Spring Statement) to 2.5 per cent of GDP from April 2027 was a significant one. The measures taken to generate the fiscal headroom to pay for it- particularly cutting overseas development aid, and slashing welfare budgets – were not particularly popular ones. This is not an era of win-win policy choices – but boosting defence spending is a critical part of what Starmer’s government sees as a core responsibility: to position Britain as a steady hand in an unstable world.

    The continuation of the war in Ukraine, renewed conflict in the middle east, and a second Trump presidency, renewed trade wars and global volatility all point towards this being the difficult but correct choice to make.

    A significant uplift to its budget is the sort of things the higher education sector can only dream of. The increase to defence spending is not only massive, it’s also moderately popular. In a new Public First/Stonehaven poll, which looked at the trade offs the Government will need to make in the current era of hard choices, we found it which has moderate public support: 57 per cent back the uplift.

    There is an opportunity for the higher education sector here that they may be reluctant to take. Universities are a relatively silent partner in the UK’s defense capabilities, despite the fact this is a clear area of opportunity. Defense companies are increasingly avoiding campuses for graduate recruitment after a rising wave of student protests – the Times reported that 20 companies have been advised against attending on campus events because of security fears.

    Who will defend the defenders?

    Many universities are trying to balance their industrial R&D and skills partnerships with the defense sector with a growing generational divide in attitudes towards the defense industry. Negative perceptions of the defense sector are particularly entrenched among Gen Z. Just under a fifth (17 per cent) of the general population say that they would be ashamed to work for the defense industry – but this rises to 31 per cent of 18-24 year olds. Nearly a third of 18-34 year olds say their friends would judge them if they worked in the defense industry. Going too hard on defence and being seen to be doing too much may risk a knock-on impact on student recruitment.

    The increased investment in defense and security isn’t just about more soldiers and sailors and more ships and planes. It includes commitments on research and skills, and a ringfenced post of 10 per cent of the uplift for “novel technologies”. Increasingly, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) will become a major strategic procurer and funder in advanced research and development across the UK, which presents an increasingly rare and hard won opportunity for UK universities – and one where the public opinion is more balanced.

    Talking about the role for university led R&D which boosts national security is a reputation win for the sector as a whole. In our large-scale research with the Campaign for Science and Engineering, which explored what the UK public think and feel about R&D, we found a strong preference for investment in new defensive technologies over more military personnel – a view broadly shared across all ages, and across the political spectrum

    When we asked what the highest priority should be to improve national security, investment in R&D was the joint second most popular option, behind tackling cyber attacks and misinformation.

    Hard choices

    The defense sector as a whole might be an unpopular thing to talk about on campus. But there is a significant government investment being made in defense spending, and a clear moral and social argument that we live in a time when increasing the capacity and capability of our national security systems is the right thing to do. We know there is broad public support for this investment going towards research and development, and that there are significant skills gaps across our defense sector, impacting our broader defense and security offering.

    In a time when politicians are making hard choices, university leaders need to be doing the same.

    The modern armed services need highly skilled graduates in a range of roles – not just as professional soldiers, sailors or pilots but also in a myriad of supporting roles such as cyber security, communications, quantum technology, logistics, engineering, advanced manufacturing, foreign languages, and diplomacy. And equally too, the government will need academics and university research labs to step up, in partnership with businesses, to help design and roll out technologies that will support this expanded defence effort. This is both an economic case and a moral case – and one that universities should seize.

    And if this is an opportunity which universities shy away from, they may be waiting a long time for the next economic windfall to come their way.

    Source link