Acting Secretary: Julie Poulton

Research, Enterprise and Regional Affairs Office

Woolwich

Tel: 7902 Fax: 8630

Email:

ACADEMIC COUNCIL

RESEARCH AND ENTERPRISE COMMITTEE

Minutes from the third meeting in 2007 on Thursday 5th July at 2.00 pm in Room 039, Queen Anne, Greenwich Campus

PRESENT

Professor A Reed (Vice Chair)

Mr D Beazleigh, Finance

Mrs J Cullen, RERA

Dr N Dasgupta, Humanities

Professor E Galea, CMS

Professor D Isaac, Architecture & Construction

Dr J Jameson, Education and Training

Mr J Linton, NRI

Ms W Liu, RERA

Ms J Poulton, RERA

Mrs L Spencer, RSAO

Professor A Westby, NRI

Professor L West, Health and Social Care

Mr J Wallace, Administrative Secretary

Dr S Woodhead, School of Engineering/RERA

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Professor J Humphreys (Chair)

Professor C Bailey, CMS

Mr Marc Hume, RERA

Professor C Mackie, Pharmacy

Dr J Morton, NRI

Professor M Snowden, School of Science

ITEMS FROM THE CHAIR

No items received.

1.MINUTES OF THE 2nd MEETING OF THE RESEARCH AND ENTERPRISE COMMITTEE HELD IN 2007 ON 14th May 2007

  • Item No. 6 - IP assignment from PhD students to the University. Mr Wallace requested a change to the wording in the first sentence – ‘Mr Wallace informed the Committee that the current registration document relating to this matter may not always be enforceable’.

MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES (not included elsewhere on the Agenda)

  • Item No. 4 – Redefining Assessors for MPhil/PhD Transfer Vivas. It was uncertain whether the recommendation to amend the PhD transfer viva assessment team had been received by Academic Council for approval. Should the case be that Academic Council approval has not been sought, the Committee agreed that Professor Humphreys would need to transact this by Chair’s Action on behalf of Research and Enterprise Committee and, similarly, the Vice-Chancellor would need to transact by Chair’s Action for Academic Council. With approval, the Research Student Administrative Office (RSAO) would then be in a position to amend the Academic Regulations for Research Awards, thus allowing implementation for the next academic session (i.e. 2007-08).

ACTION:Clarification to be sought from Professor Humphreys with regard to the status of the action for this item, and set in motion Chairs’ Actions if necessary.

ACTION:Once approval has been granted, RSAO to modify regulations from start of session 2007-08.

  • Item No. 5 – Guidance on Professorial Inaugural Lectures. The Chair was unsure whether the required action had been undertaken by Professor Humphreys.

ACTION:Clarification to be sought from Professor Humphreys with regard to the action for this item.

2.MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

  • IP Assignment from MPhil/PhD students to the University

The Committee referred to a paper produced by Mr Wallace which invited members to consider whether all postgraduate research students should assign IP as a matter of course, and what would happen in the event that a student refused to do so.

Mr Wallace informed the Committee that the university currently has a general statement of assignment to which the student signs upon enrolment, but it is not extensive and could not be relied upon to provide the university with rights over IP to which a student has contributed. The Committee discussed the need for assignment of IP from postgraduate research students who may produce IP of interest to the university. Mr Wallace explained the assignment is particularly important from students deemed as “inventors”, because these students will be part-owners of the IP and will have rights over its subsequent use and exploitation, which could, therefore, have an impact on university staff members wanting to make use of the IP.

The Committee discussed this at length and, having considered the different variants of students in terms of their funding sources, agreed that all new postgraduate research students, regardless of how their degrees are funded, should assign their IP to the university upon enrolment with the university. The University would continue to negotiate IP arrangements with external organisations for those students working within externally funded contracts.

It was agreed not to ask existing students to (re-)assign their IP because this could lead to complications.

The Committee also discussed the course of action required in the event that a student refuses to assign their IP at enrolment. The Committee agreed that these students should not be enrolled.

The Chair asked Mr Wallace if approval to implement this would need to be sought from Academic Council. Mr Wallace responded that as the university already has a policy, a process could be adopted whereby the IP clause in the existing policy could be made more explicit with an embellishment of the outcome of the discussion at this meeting. This could then be referred on to Academic Council for information.

Discussion relating to the process by which new students would assign their IP then took place and it was agreed that a paragraph should be added to the offer (contract) letter sent to students by the RSAO.

ACTION:Mr Wallace to send a form of words to Mrs Spencer for inclusion in the research student offer letter.

ACTION:Matter to be referred to Academic Council for information.

RESEARCH, ENTERPRISE & REGIONAL AFFAIRS OFFICE

3.PREPARATIONS FOR RAE 2008 - UPDATE

  • Update on Scrutiny meetings

Dr Woodhead reported that the first round of scrutiny meetings had been completed within the university’s timescale for scrutiny of UoAs. A second round of scrutiny meetings would now take place to check progress was being made according to the actions identified in the first round of meetings.

ACTION:Dr Woodhead to organise second round of scrutiny meetings.

  • Procedures for School sign-off of submissions (to note)

Dr Woodhead explained the process to be adopted by School’s in signing-off their RAE submission(s). An email communication outlining this process would soon be circulated to HoS and DoR.

ACTION:Dr Woodhead to circulate email communication.

  • Submission of Outputs to RERA

Dr Woodhead informed the Committee that outputs without DOIs included in the university’s RAE submissions would need to be sent, in physical form, to RERA by 24th August. A note explaining this process would emerge soon. Questions arose with regard to:

  • functioning of CD-roms; and
  • whether the chapter or whole book would be required for book chapter entries.

Dr Woodhead responded that he would seek clarification on the latter.

ACTION:Dr Woodhead to circulate note regarding DOIs.

  • Research Expertise Database

Dr Woodhead reported that RERA had created a Research Expertise Database and that a large number of colleagues had now entered their data into it. There were two actions with regard to this:

(i)staff should be encouraged to enter their data and inform Neil Cormack (RERA) if there are problems; and

(ii)data entered must be consistent with how staff are being entered into the RAE.

Discussion took place and concerns were expressed with regard to how the data could potentially be used and by whom. Committee members were also unsure of the real effectiveness of the database in terms of the RAE. Levels of scrutiny of data entered into the database were debated and, whilst it was agreed important to scrutinise the data, some Committee members were of the opinion that individual UoA co-ordinators should compile this data to better focus the potential viewer on their RAE submissions.

ACTION:Dr Woodhead to discuss with RERA.

4.ARPD

  • ARPD Summary Report 2005-06

The Chair reported that the data in the ARPD Summary Report included in the paperwork had been synthesised from a number of sources. Some Committee members were concerned that they had not had sight of the final version of the report before it had been received by Academic Council.

Dr Jameson reported that the number of ED&T publications showed a decline and this was incorrect. She reported further that she would have liked to have amended this through sight of the report prior to the draft being finalised for Academic Council and suggested a consultation exercise is adopted for future ARPDs.

  • New format for “Research and Enterprise” section of ARPD

The Chair reported that following a discussion on the matter at the Research and Enterprise Committee meeting on 14th May, Professor Humphreys requested that he (Professor Reed) form a Working Group to look at the current “Research and Enterprise” section of the ARPD, with a view to making recommendations for a new format of the pro-forma for future ARPDs.

The Committee referred to the proposed new format prepared by Professor Reed as a result of the outcome of the discussions at the Working Party. The Chair explained that the new format would improve greatly upon the existing one by allowing relevant information to be captured to get a better overall view of where the university is at in terms of its broad research area. He reported the proposed main changes as follows:

  • the appropriate data would be drawn from the University’s central departments (e.g. funding, research students); and
  • data would be captured on a calendar year basis.

The Committee discussed the proposed capture of data on a calendar year basis. Whilst it was felt it would be very difficult to capture the financial data in this way, because of the various other finance-related returns made by financial year, the Committee felt that publications should be collected by calendar year. This would simplify matters in that staff would no longer have to work out which academic year a publication was issued. In turn, this would then prevent any subsequent problems encountered with double-counting of publications as a result of not knowing exact dates of publication.

Overall, the Committee welcomed the much improved new format for ARPDs and the process for collecting data. Comments received in the meeting included:

  • Annual university research reports could be produced from the new style Research and Enterprise section of the ARPD;
  • better analysis of School performance in Research and Enterprise;
  • up-to-date, useful information emulating from the report could be placed on the web site; and
  • data could be used for ‘returns’ to external bodies.

The following suggestions were received at the meeting:

  • the form should be revised at Section X.1 to include a specific section for ‘information on progress reports on externally-funded projects’;
  • a section for ‘Any other spin-outs’ should be added to X.4 to allow for diversity in this area;
  • a definition for when projects actually start (e.g. at sign-off?) is given at X.2 c);
  • the Esteem/Impact factors at X.5 are given explicit headings and re-formatted accordingly;
  • a spreadsheet/data entry form should accompany X.6 Annex for publications listings; and
  • software products at X.4 should read ‘licensing products’.

The Chair suggested that, as this was the first opportunity Committee members had had to look at the proposed draft format, any suggestions and/or comments should be sent to Ms Poulton.

ACTION:Committee members to forward suggestion/comments to Ms Poulton by 12th July.

ACTION:Chair to finalise format, for use in session in 2007-08.

5.Research & Enterprise Programmes Allocations 2007/8 – Arrangements and Procedures

Dr Woodhead reported on the light-touch procedure for allocating funds to Schools for R&E programmes for the next academic session. Funding for 2007/8 would be at the same level as allocations received for 2006/7. Professor Galea queried why the amount remained the same and also stated that a breakdown of amounts of funding received for R&E programmes in 2006/07 should have been contained within Mr Hume’s memorandum of 29th June as it was unclear whether the full amount of funding for the two years had been received in 2006/7, or whether two separate allocations were to be given covering each year. Without this knowledge it would be difficult to provide rationales for any projected underspend.

Referring to Mr Hume’s memorandum, Mrs Cullen re-iterated that any invoicing/coding issues would need to be resolved in collaboration with Finance as soon as possible.

Professor West challenged the low amount of funding received by the School of Health and Social Care. The Chair suggested that, as this was the second year in the cycle of funding, she should raise her concerns again with the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research this time next year.

ACTION:Dr Woodhead to clarify with RERA how funding for R&E programmes has been/will be allocated and provide feedback to DORs.

6.Marketing and Promoting Research & Enterprise Excellence and Activities

Dr Woodhead reported that RERA are in the process of developing a marketing strategy for research and development activities across the university. He then updated the Committee on the following RERA activities:

  • development of an improved website;
  • production of School-based fact sheets;
  • feedback on Expertise database;
  • provision of banner display stands for each School;
  • development of a RERA E-Newsletter; and
  • a change of RERA’s name to ‘Greenwich Research and Enterprise Office’.

7.New Finance, Costing & Pricing Guidelines

Dr Woodhead informed the Committee that the University’s Research Committees and Finance Committee had put together revised costing and pricing information for research and enterprise projects. This will simplify paperwork and processes for costing and pricing and new forms are now available.

Dr Woodhead reported that RERA will provide guidance to academic colleagues as to how this will impact the costing and pricing processes. Training sessions will be provided in September and will be held on each campus.

Professor Galea asked if the current costing and pricing amounts on the web site were the correct ones to use, as the university’s costs seem low bearing in mind its estates costs. The Committee agreed it was vitally important to update the web site accordingly if it had not already been done.

ACTION:RERA to confirm costing and pricing amounts on web site are correct.

ITEMS FROM SCHOOLS

No items received.

RESEARCH STUDENTS

8.a)Minutes of the Research Degree Committees (to note)

The Chair reported that minutes had not been received from AHRDC.

ACTION:Professor West to bring this to the attention of the Chair at the next AHRDC meeting.

The Chair reported that, despite several attempts to remedy this, a number of Pharmacy students are still not registered with the MCRDC. The Committee expressed their concern with regard to this.

The Committee received and noted the following minutes from the Research Degrees Committees:

  • Medway Campus RDC minutes, 16th April 2007
  • CHRDC minutes, 31st January 2007
  • CHRDC minutes, 2nd May 2007
  • CHRDC minutes, 5th June 2007
  • BusinessSchool minutes, 7th February 2007
  • BusinessSchool minutes, 25th April 2007

b)Academic Technology Approval Scheme (ATAS)

The Committee received a paper prepared by Mrs Spencer. She reported on a new mandatory Government scheme which will require non-EA postgraduates who require a visa, and want to study "proliferation-risk" science subjects in the UK, to apply for approval on-line. The scheme will become mandatory from 1st September 2007 with a light-touch, and will then be “live proper” on 1st November.

Mrs Spencer informed the Committee that to abide by the new regulations and to fully support potential students with their applications, supervisors and applicants will be required to identify clearly on the student application form the area of study to be explored on the proposed programme of study. The RSAO would then be responsible for applying the correct JACS code to the offer letter, in consultation with academics if necessary, so that the applicant will have the correct information when seeking ATAS clearance.

c)Remuneration for External Examiners for MPhil/PhD

The Committee referred to the paper prepared by Mrs Spencer. The University currently pays external examiners’ fees at £120 and £90 for PhD and MPhil vivas respectively. The Committee discussed whether these amounts should be increased based on the information provided in the paper. The Committee agreed the following fee increases:

  • £200 for PhD viva; and
  • £150 for MPhil viva

Increased levels of fees to start from next session (1st August 2007) and to be met from School budgets.

d)2006-2007 Audit of Postgraduate Research Students undertaken by the Research Student Administrative Office

Mrs Spencer reported that this was the second in the cycle of audits of research student files undertaken by the RSAO. It was however, the first time that the Key Skills Logbooks/Portfolios had been looked at.

The Committee referred to the summary report and noted the recommendations.

The Committee then discussed the perceived low level of participation from students with the Key Skills Development Programme (KSDP) and suggestions were made as to how engagement could be improved. Suggestions received included:

  • each school could be responsible for a key skill; and
  • a custom built research methods courses could be made available for all doctoral level students.

The Chair reminded Committee members that the University has already informed the QAA about its Key Skills Development Programme in its recent response to the Special Review of Postgraduate Research Degree Programmes. It is therefore, also imperative that Logbooks/portfolios are completed for institutional audits.