Summary notes of the Executive Committee held on 5 December 2007
- RAE 2008
Congratulations were offered to all those staff involved in the University's RAE submission, which had been submitted two days before the deadline.
- Research Excellence Framework
The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) summarised the main elements of the proposed REF.
• There would be two distinct approaches for the STEM disciplines (defined as sciences, technology, engineering and medicine, but not mathematics and statistics) and for other disciplines. A boundary would be drawn, with science-based disciplines sub-divided into six broad subject groups for assessment and funding purposes.
• Assessment and funding for the science-based disciplines will be driven by quantitative indicators, weighted by discipline. A new bibliometric indicator of research quality was being developed, based on the Thompson Scientific Database, in order to generate quality profiles using bibliometric data. Indicators such as research income and numbers of research students would be also used.
• Assessment and funding for the other disciplines (the arts, humanities, social sciences and mathematics and statistics) would be based on a new 'light touch' peer review process informed by metrics. This was yet to be outlined in any detail, but could include sampling of a reduced number of outputs.
• For STEM disciplines, the new framework would be phased in gradually from 2010 until 2014, when it would drive all research funding. For the other disciplines, the light touch peer review process would start in 2013, driving funding from 2014.
An internal consultation was underway on the University's response to the REF. Preliminary comments included the following:
• There were concerns about data quality might necessitate verification at institutional and discipline levels. This and other methodological problems could end up reducing the cost effectiveness of the proposed regime. It did underscore the need for PIP, however.
• There were also questions about the coverage of the Thompson Scientific Database, especially in Engineering, and about whether new forms of publication, some without conventional abstracts, would be taken into account.
• It was not clear how often evaluations of STEM disciplines would take place, or be 'refreshed'.
• Treatment of 'networks' of citations was unclear.
• It was not clear how the 'citation count' for a member of staff would be treated if they moved to another institution.
• Similarly, clarification would be needed of the position of researchers in boundary disciplines.
• The implications for early career researchers and the scope for taking account of special circumstances were both unclear.
• The scope for incorporating user-focussed research was unclear.
• The role that expert panels could be expected to fulfil at higher levels of discipline aggregation was unclear.
• The timeframes proposed would be exacting.
• Notwithstanding all of these issues, the political endgame might be that the dual support system would be abolished if a metrics-based system could not be made to work.
- Professional Services: Actions agreed at the last Strategic Executive Committee meeting
The University Secretary a number of proposals for implementing the actions agreed at the Strategic Executive Committee. These had been discussed with other support service Heads of Departments.
• The Office of the University Secretary would produce a concise and integrated statement of the University's objectives, strategies, policies and procedures, aiming to bring this to the March 2008 meeting of the Committee.
• A schedule would be drawn up for support service Heads of Departments to present reports on activities in their department to the Committee. These reports would be brief, analytical in nature, incorporating benchmarking and KPI data, and describe both main developments in the past academic year and key issues anticipated in the year ahead. It was proposed that two reports would be brought to each meeting of the Committee, starting from March 2008.
• A communications programme was proposed between January and March 2008 in which all support service Heads of Department would communicate their current priorities and plans, and relevant constraints they faced, to academic Heads of Departments.
• The Director of Marketing and Communications would periodically collect and circulate examples of good practice in support service departments. Involvement of academic departments would be welcome.
- Draft Race Equality Scheme and Action Plan
The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Strategic Developments) introduced the draft of the Race Equality Scheme and Action Plan. This was the third of the Schemes the University was legally obliged to publish. A number of late amendments were to be made in respect of identification of lead responsibilities, the Dignity at Work Policy and production of the Annual Report. Subject to any comments from the Committee, it was proposed that the draft would be presented for formal consideration at the next meeting of Council, and, in the meantime, posted on the University website marked "subject to approval".
-
Draft Software Management Policy
The Director of Computing Services said that this draft policy had been produced by the Information Services Planning Committee following a recommendation by Internal Audit. There were three main elements: (a) in all cases where BUCS was responsible for the procurement, maintenance and renewal of software products and applications, it would ensure that a site licence was in place and that conditions of use were met; (b) in all cases where departments or units procure specialise software for local use, the Head of Department would be responsible for the site licence and conditions of use; and (c) that individual members of staff who elected to be responsible for the administration of their own IT would be accountable to the Head of Department for site licence and conditions of use. Departments were encouraged to contact BUCS before procuring local software to check if an existing site licence was in place or if there were opportunities for bulk procurement.
-
Disability Equality Scheme: Draft Annual Report 2006/07
The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Strategic Developments) said the University was required to publish as part of the Disability Equality Scheme (DES). This would be submitted to the Equality and Diversity Committee and posted on the University website. The report outlined revisions made to the DES and associated Action Plan based on feedback from the Disability Rights Commission and the Equality Challenge Unit; reported on progress in implementation of the Action Plan; highlighted key achievements, such as the award to the University of the 'Two Ticks' kite mark and improvements to access in a number of areas across the campus; and described how student/staff information gathered over the course over the year would inform future work.
- Risk Management Report
The Executive Assistant reported on actions being taken to address the following two risks:
HR4 - Failure to retain highly qualified staff (assessed as a net risk of 36, so therefore below threshold tolerance)
RE2 - Weakness of central (research) infrastructure (assessed as a net risk of 30, so below threshold tolerance)
|
VC's
Office | University | Search
| News | A-Z
Index | Contact VC's Office 
