Equality Proofing of
Research Assessment
Main Report

Equality Challenge Unit

October 2003

Contents

Executive Summary3

Recommendations5

Report

Brief 7

Approach 8

Context 9

Legislative 9

Higher Education-specific Requirements and Initiatives11

Institutional Capacity12

Recommendations

Basic Principles13

National13

Institutional15

Standards, Monitoring and Penalties17

Template

Section A: Institutional Submission19

Section B: Unit of Assessment Comments22

Section C: Progress since previous submission23

Pro-forma templates

Section A25

Section B27

Section C28

Equality Proofing Research Assessment

Executive Summary

  1. The report was commissioned from the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) as part of the consultation process for the review of research assessment by Sir Gareth Roberts.
  1. The report was to address:
  • the impact of the RAE upon equality of opportunity to all groups of staff in HE;
  • the overall impact of the Roberts proposals;

and to provide specific advice on:

  • the items which might be included in an assessment template for the ‘equal opportunities’ section of the proposed Research Competencies Assessment;
  • the means by which such an assessment might be undertaken.
  1. It was not part of the brief to comment on the academic dimensions of the research assessment.
  1. The Main Report, which is presented here, elaborates upon the interim report which the ECU submitted in September 2003 to coincide with the sector-wide consultation deadline.
  1. The recommendations are made within the three-level approach outlined in the consultation document, and assumes an interim assessment of research competencies in advance of a selective Research Quality Assessment. If there were to be modifications to the operational framework, most of the principles put forward could easily be adapted to a new overall framework.
  1. The Report is based on the essential principle that assessment of the equal opportunities dimension in the submission does not form part of any research grading, but is judged on a threshold basis. It is, however, recommended that the robustness of the equal opportunities part of the submission be underpinned by a degree of internal moderation built into the system for exercises subsequent to that planned for 2007; by the use of external consultants; and by the establishment of a penalty by the Funding Councils in the cases of extreme violations of the equal opportunities requirements.
  1. Since, by the time of the next and subsequent Research Assessments, many new and highly relevant legislative frameworks will be in place, these are surveyed before any recommendations are made.
  1. A further contextualising dimension in the Report is a brief survey of recent developments which have increased institutions’ capacity to meet explicit equal opportunities requirements, and thus any requirements which may be adopted within future Research Assessments.
  1. The Main Report supports a balance between institutional and funding council control over the research assessment process and accordingly makes two groups of recommendations, relating to:
  • the national dimensions of the assessment (i.e. at funding council and panel level);
  • the institutional level dimensions of the assessment.
  1. It is proposed that use is made of institutions’ human resources strategies for the interim assessment, and that additionally a template is used for collecting institutional-level information that is focused more on the equal opportunities dimension of research activity.
  1. On the principle of ‘something for something’, it is proposed that those institutions seeking further levels of research funding by submitting UoAs to the Research Quality Assessment exercise should provide additional information about equal opportunities practices at the time of the RQA, again using the template.
  1. Within this Report, explanatory commentaries are provided for each of the questions proposed for the template. Explanations such as these could be provided to institutions.
  1. It is envisaged that there will be some variation between the assessment in 2007 and those in subsequent years in view of the differing levels of information that will be available. This is accommodated within the template proposed, which will have an additional section for Research Assessments after 2007.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1

We recommend that the funding councils review the method of selection of UoA panel members and Chairs.

Recommendation 2

We recommend that prolonged absences from work are treated in the same way by all panels. Specific rules should be formulated to provide guidance on the treatment of prolonged sick leave, absences relating to a disabled person’s impairment, maternity/adoption leave, other exceptional prolonged absence, secondment, career breaks, additional caring responsibilities eg for elderly parents and in the case of clinicians, unusually burdensome clinical or contractual responsibilities.

Recommendation 3

We recommend that all panels should specify consistent criteria for dealing with the inclusion of those who have recently joined the profession.

Recommendation 4

We recommend that panels be trained and fully briefed on the new standards to be applied in respect of equal opportunities in assessing the work of individuals, particularly in the light of the rising standards set by legislation, and the consequent risks involved.

Recommendation 5

We recommend that the equal opportunities information submitted for the interim assessment should comprise the institution’s current Human Resources strategy, with the sections relevant for equal opportunities itemised on a cover-sheet; and that equal opportunities information focused on research activity should be provided in a defined template.

Recommendation 6

We recommend that, at the time of the Research Quality Assessment, all institutions seeking funding through the quality assessment of UoAs would provide further equal opportunities information, again using the template

Recommendation 7

We recommend that, in research assessments after 2007, a further section be added to the template so that comment and explanation relative to the equal opportunities information in the previous submission can be provided, thus embedding a degree of internal moderation.

Recommendation 8

To ensure consistency of interpretation, we recommend that one body assesses all the institutions’ equal opportunities information, for the interim exercise submitting their evaluation to the national team, and for the RQA proper to the relevant UoA panels, as confirmation that the threshold has been achieved.

Recommendation 9

We recommend that the funding councils determine the way in which failure to achieve an acceptable standard in the equalities dimension will impact on the overall result.

Equality Proofing of Research Assessment

Main Report

The Brief

  1. At the end of July 2003 the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) was commissioned

by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to produce a written report on the equal opportunities implications of the proposals put forward by Sir Gareth Roberts in his review of the research assessment exercise (RAE). These proposals were referred to the higher education sector for consultation in May 2003: Joint consultation on the review of research assessment (May 2003/22).

2. The ECU’s report was to address:

  • the impact of the RAE upon equality of opportunity for all groups of staff in HE;
  • the overall impact of the Roberts proposals.

It was also to provide specific advice on:

  • the items which might be included in an assessment template for the ‘equal opportunities’ section of the proposed Research Competencies Assessment;
  • the means by which such an assessment might be undertaken.
  1. It was not part of the brief to comment on the academic dimensions of research assessment.
  1. In September 2003, we submitted an interim version of this report to HEFCE to coincide with the consultation deadline. The final report provides a wider exposition of the equal opportunities context within which the interim

recommendations were sited, and expands on them.

The Approach

  1. We have identified two distinct loci in which decisions concerning research assessment are made and the report is structured to reflect this. These are at the national level (funding councils and assessment panels) and at the level of individual institutions, where decisions may be taken centrally and/or at departmental/UoA level.
  1. We make recommendations that would introduce an element of equality proofing to the aspects of research assessment that are controlled by the funding councils, at a national level, and by individual institutions, at a local level.
  1. We believe that the balance between institutional and funding council control over the processes connected to research assessment will not be affected by our recommendations. We do not think that the control exercised by the funding councils should exceed that recommended in the Roberts Report.
  1. This report contextualises ‘equal opportunities competencies’ for research assessment within the broad equality spectrum and existing institutional Human Resource strategies. Our recommendations take account of existing and forthcoming national employment legislation, and the funding councils’ present initiatives and requirements.
  1. We have attempted to devise a framework for which institutions will have to prepare in a systematic way, as an integral part of their developing strategy for entry to the next exercise. It will not be something that they will be able to disregard or append to a submission as an afterthought. At the same time, we capitalise as much as possible on work already being done, thus minimising the amount of special reporting that will be required. In this way, we hope that the equal opportunities dimension of the research assessment will support mainstreaming on an institution-wide basis.
  1. This report is based on the three-level approach outlined in the consultation document. Thus we assume three options for institutions:
  2. little or no engagement with the Research Assessment;
  3. engaging in mixed mode (i.e. some Units of Assessment submitted for the full Research Quality Assessment and others submitted to the Research Capacity Assessment, which would lead to limited funding calculated by reference to proxy measures);
  4. full engagement with the RQA across all UoAs.
  1. By reference to the framework proposed in the consultation document, we also assume that:
  • all institutions will submit to the interim assessment, within which there will be an equal opportunities dimension;
  • they will all need to achieve a threshold level;
  • nothing more will be required of institutions not proceeding further;
  • institutions proceeding on a mixed RQA/RCA basis will have to provide further information at the time of the RQA itself, including information on equal opportunities at an institutional level, and at the level of such UoAs as are submitted;
  • institutions submitting for the RQA across all of their UoAs will have to provide further information at the time of the RQA both at an institutional level and at the level of each UoA.
  1. If there were to be modifications to the operational framework, most of the principles that we have put forward could easily be adapted to a new overall framework.
Context

Legislative

  1. Most of the equal opportunities considerations that are external, but relevant, to the conduct of the next assessment of research did not exist at the time of the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). The equal opportunities legislation in place at the time of the last exercise was confined to the Race Relations Act 1976, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equal Pay Act 1970, and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Significant changes have been made to equalities legislation since 2001, most notably the Race Relations (Amendment) Act. The integration of common employment standards across Europe has seen, and will see, the introduction of legislation in the previously untouched areas of sexual orientation, religion or belief, and age.
  1. In addition, the recent introduction of paternity and adoption leave, the right to request flexible working hours for parents of young children, extended maternity leave, and protection for part-time workers and those on fixed term contracts have all contributed to the creation of a completely different kind of working environment.
  1. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 introduced a duty for all higher education institutions to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good race relations between persons of different racial groups, in carrying out their functions.
  1. The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 outlaw discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. In addition to providing protection against discrimination in employment, the legislation extends to ‘vocational training’, including students in further and higher education. The Regulations come into force in December 2003. They would necessarily have to be considered in any assessment of an institution’s policies for ensuring equality of opportunity for all its staff, not just those in research roles.
  1. Parallel legislation, that also comes into effect in December 2003, outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The same considerations apply as in §16.
  1. Legislation outlawing discrimination on the grounds of age will be in place at the time of the next assessment of research. It will have, perhaps, the greatest potential to provide grounds for major challenges to institutional selection processes. Most particularly, institutions will almost certainly have to ensure that their treatment of young researchers is applied consistently to those both young in age and young in the profession.
  1. Parents with children under the age of six (eighteen if the child is disabled) have the right to request flexible working hours. The onus is on an institution to show that the request cannot be accommodated. It would not be expected that flexible working hours if granted would result in any form of direct or indirect discrimination in any other aspect of employment.
  1. Part-time workers are now entitled to the same annual leave and maternity/paternity leave on a pro-rata basis as their full-time colleagues. They must also be allowed the same access to training as full-time workers. Their part-time status should not prejudice their chances of being included in an assessment of research.
  1. As far as we are aware, no analysis has been undertaken of the contribution that staff on fixed-term contracts made to the last RAE. The Fixed-Term Regulations protect staff on fixed-term contracts against detriment due to their status. This would include consideration for inclusion in the research assessment.
  1. Statutory maternity leave was extended and adoption leave introduced early in 2003. While many institutions already had a more generous maternity leave allowance that the statutory minimum, all new mothers have the right to take a maximum of one year’s leave around the time of the birth of their child. Adoption leave confers the same right, but to either of the adopting parents. Account needs to be taken of these extended periods of statutory entitlement to ensure that they do not become a potentially discriminatory reason for exclusion in the assessment of research.

Higher Education-specific Requirements and Initiatives

  1. The higher education sector is extending and consolidating the work it has already begun in developing Human Resources strategies. Although this is being implemented in different ways in the different funding council areas, there is a common aim of raising standards, in which the funding councils have a lead role. Such improvements cannot be achieved without incorporating an equalities dimension, which are in any case made explicit within the various frameworks that have been set.
  1. The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) has extended its data collection requirements and the changes that have been made will have become embedded in institutional processes by 2007.
  1. The Research Careers Initiative (RCI) continues to aim for significant improvements to the career development of contract research staff. Even though the recommendations in The Research Careers Initiative, Final Report1997-2002 are directed at Government and Research Funders they will have an impact on, and require response from, institutions.
  1. HEIs applying for EU funding (for example Framework 6 and following) are now required to provide explicit policy statements on equal opportunities, and are submitting to a process which is systematically assessed for equal opportunities impact.

Institutional Capacity

  1. Institutions have increased capacity for collecting and analysing staff data as a result of developments in their HR strategies and their need to meet the new HESA requirements, and the more exacting standards now set by law.
  1. In repose to requirements external to the sector and those of the funding councils a great many higher education institutions have also increased their human resource/equality office capacity. In the light of this, we believe that the proposed additional ‘equal opportunities competency’ requirement of the next assessment will not necessitate the employment of extra staff.
  1. It will, however, be essential for institutions to be informed of the requirements of a revised Research Assessment process at an early date so that work can be planned and duplication avoided.

1

The Recommendations

Basic Principles

  1. We believe that the retention of local discretion in determining submissions to the next assessment of research is essential.
  1. In our recommendations, we take account of the improving capacity to implement equal opportunities policies and plans in individual institutions. We would not wish institutions to view the equal opportunities competence as placing significant additional administrative demands on them.
  1. Equal opportunities should be part of the general criteria for research assessment and part of each panel’s criteria, so that it is seen as integral to the whole exercise. This element of the submission should therefore be subject to the same checking and auditing procedures as all other parts of the process.
  1. Notwithstanding § 32 above, in common with the Roberts Review, we see the competencies as being assessed on a threshold basis and not as forming part of the actual grading process.

National

  1. The Research Assessment Exercise was premised on peer review which is conducted through panel appraisal. The panels for each Unit of Assessment (UoA) were selected through a process that has appeared to be less than transparent. The process has yielded, at the very least, a gender imbalance. The ethnic mix of the panels and proportion of disabled people on them is not known. Even allowing for the paucity of women in some subject areas, it is noteworthy that they made up only about one fifth of ordinary panel membership in the 2001 exercise and one sixth of Chairs.
  1. We recognise that quotas cannot be introduced to ensure that women, ethnic minorities and disabled people are proportionally represented on the panels. However, the existing procedures for the nomination and selection of panel members would appear to militate against women. As the same method of evaluation is proposed for the Research Quality Assessment the selection of UoA panel members and Chairs should be appraised.

Recommendation 1

We recommend that the funding councils review the method of selection of UoA panel members and Chairs.