RC xxxxxx
The University of Chichester
Research Committee
Minutes: 04 July 2012
Present:
Prof Clive Behagg (CB) - Chair / Dr Sarah Gilroy (SGDr Peter Bunyan (PB) / Dr Iain Greenlees (IG)
Dr David Cooper (DC) / Dr Ben Noys (BN)
Dr Andy Dixon (AD) / Dr Duncan Salkeld (DS)
Dr Suzie Everley (SE)
In attendance: Dr Antony Walsh (AW) (clerk)
Section A
- Research Degrees Group
1.1 To receive and note the confirmed minutes of the meeting held on 18 June 2012.
2. Ethics Committee
2.1 To receive and note the confirmed minutes of the meeting held on 19 June 2012.
3.REF Project Team
3.1 No outstanding REF PT minutes available since the last Research Committee meeting.
4. Reports and information from the sector
4.1 Summary of UK research funders’ expectations for the content of data management plans.
Section B
- Apologies for absence
Apologies were accepted from Dr Andrew Chandler, Dr Shirley Chubb, Dr Vini Lander, Dr David Muggleton, Ms Anna O'Neill, Mr James Gavin, Ms Elizabeth Holmes and Dr Mark Willems.
- Minutes of previous meeting
Dr Suzie Everley stated that her presence had been omitted. Dr Iain Greenlees noted that he had submitted apologies to the meeting. The clerk agreed to make the necessary amendments.
- Matters Arising
11. 2 University Sabbatical Policy to be remitted to Executive Dean’s Team for further consideration.
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) stated that the Sabbatical Policy was being discussed by EDT and the outcome of the discussion would be returned to the Research Committee in September. The prevailing opinion of the team was that the usual current arrangements that exist within departments, notably with teaching teams cooperating to allow individuals to have blocks of time to complete research, should be maintained.
Action SG
7 To amend the ‘Proposal for the allocation of bursaries for PhD study for 12/13 and beyond to offer a broader range of options for deployment by departments
The Director of Research stated that interviews for bursaries had started that week. In total some 20 potential students would be interviewed.
7.1, 7.2 To clarify the responsibilities for ensuring that PGRs with teaching duties are enrolled on the PG Cert and fully supported in their roles. SG to raise for discussion with the Academic Management Team. AD to raise for discussion with the Research Degree Group.
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) explained that the Academic Management Team would be considering the QAA recommendations in this area and would seek to align them with staff development guidelines. From discussions at AMT, it emerged that the responsibilities in the process needed clarification and that commissioning staff needed to take full responsibility for the required support for PGRs that teach. A realisation has also emerged that the use of mentors for PGRs engaged in teaching was not,in the opinion of some students, seen to be ‘support’. This would require clarification. Overall it was felt that the processes were appropriate and that the timing of PG Cert in Learning & teaching modules was reasonable. However, mentoring support needed to be made explicit.
Action SG
3.2 To confirm the category of and method of selection of Research Committee members due for renewal for 2012-13
The Chair explained that the Research Committee places due for renewal were for staff -elected members from the whole of the academic teaching body and not just Readers and Professors. Elections for the positions would be arranged shortly.
4.1 To clarify allocation of funds within the marketing budget for support to research postgraduate recruitment
The Director of Research observed that the marketing budget had yet to be finalised by the Director of Marketing. However, it is intended that the final budget will be closely linked to department plans in this area of activity. BN enquired whether the intentions of the Department of English and Creative Writing were being taken into account. The Chair asked that this point be confirmed with the Deputy Dean who is currently acting Head of Department for English.
Action AD
6.3 To prepare and present a revised model for investment in research framed by an inclusive concept of research and flexibility to allow investment for projects longer than a single academic year
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) explained that revised model had been presented to ChET. The principles of RFF will remain mostly unchanged, however the Fund will be able to support some projects of a duration exceeding one academic year. The allocation of bursaries would be separated from other funding.
8.2 The Vice-Chancellor to provide personal feedback to all applicants to the current round of Academic Promotions for research
The Chair stated that the process well advanced. Some external information was required but he hoped that feedback could be given to applicants within the next two to three weeks
Action CB
8. Postgraduate Research (PGR) Student Matters
As neither of the PGR representatives could attend the meeting, no points were raised.
- University of Southampton ERDC
9.1Updated timeline for the University’s application for RDAP
The Director of Research presented an updated RDAP plan from the RDAP working group based on the expected submission timeline. The plan would allow consideration of the submission document by the Research Committee, Academic Board and the Board of Governors. It was explained that it was a critical self-analysis document that would need to show readiness for RDAP and that all published required criteria were being met. It would be supported by an evidence base and would be similar in scale to the QAA Institutional Review. Additionally, full information relating to staff research standings, details of publications and research activity would be required.
The Chair stated that it was planned that the preparations for RDAP would be undertaken by a small group writing the application with a larger group taking ownership.
9.2Verbal update on meeting with Chair of ERDC and University of Southampton Pro VC (Education) to discuss the University of Chichester application for RDAP (25 June 2012)
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) explained that the University of Southampton were highly supportive of the application for RDAP. The University has asked to receive a copy of the RDAP application to be provided for their Senate for note. Any comments received from Senate will not weigh on the final application document. The University of Southampton also stated that they had no objections to Chichester regulations for Research Degrees being based on those from the University of Southampton.
(SE left the meeting at this point – 14.55)
- UniversityResearch strategy
10.1 Implementation of the Research strategy to discuss Strand 1 – Productivity
The Chair explained that he welcomed comments on whether the achievability of the strand remained valid. Discussion relating to the use of staff PRDPs as an indicator for this strand took place with concerns expressed that this could lead to unease. It was felt that departmental plans would be more appropriate for considering these indicators. In the view of the Chair, the reference to PRDPs reflected the need for a change of institutional culture that saw all staff recognise the need to include aspects of research in their work. It was important that support was available for this to occur in the perspective of an inclusive definition of research.
DC enquired whether the activities of current research groups, centres and clusters were being promulgated. The Director of Research explained that work to do this was on-going and an update on this would occur in September.
In response to a suggestion that research matters be given a high priority in the agendas of university academic department meetings, the Deputy-Vice Chancellor (Academic) felt that it was not the place of the Research Committee to set such requirements.
The Chair requested that the wording of this strand be amended to reflect the concerns of the Committee.
Action AD
10.2 Proposal for series of thematic Research Round Tables
The Director of Research explained that this has come from firstly a sense, gained from a number of conversations held over some time, that the University lacked a thematic approach to research. In part, the recent lunch-club research series was a response to this. Secondly, it was inspired by the success of an approach to share good practice that has been used by Learning and Teaching. The proposed round table series would facilitate shared discussions across departments and create an established means of interaction to generate cross-department research approaches to any appropriate opportunities that might arise. An example of a recent request that the University received from the South Downs National Park was cited as evidence that taking a cross department approach to research could significantly increase the effectiveness of any future external collaborations.
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) felt that this could be a promising initiative and might also be extended by offering invitations to academic staff from appropriate HEIs where partnerships were strategically beneficial. The Committee supported the initiative.
Action AD
- Outcome of the UK Borders Agency visit
11.1 Verbal feedback on the UK Borders Agency Visit and implications for international PhD students
The Chair explained that the limited feedback offered on the visit had been positive. A full report would only be made available if the Border Agency identified problems that required addressing.
- Researcher Mentoring scheme: proposal for consideration
12.1 Paper outlining a proposal for the introduction of a Research Mentoring scheme
The Director of Research noted that the scheme was being developed with the Director of Human Resources. At an early stage it had been established that it would be an additional strand to the existing university mentoring scheme.
The Committee widely welcomed the proposal and a suggestion was made that, in due course, all Readers and Professors should, de facto, be made part of the mentoring group. It was felt that there was merit to mentoring that might be available outside of the usualdepartmental structures.
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) thought that the implementation of mentoring could be particularly effective if it emerged from PRDPs. The Chair felt that Heads of Department would need to be fully briefed on this scheme so that they could best understand how it could be implemented to benefit all parties.
The Director of Research agreed to develop further documentation in support of the scheme.
Action AD
- Development of a Research Data policy
13.1Briefing on the requirement for a University Research Data Policy
The Director of Research explained that although the University’s interaction with Research Councils was currently limited, the issues were important and needed an institutional response.
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) suggested that a shared approach to finding an appropriate response with similar sized HEIs might be advantageous. The Director of Research agreed to consult with other CREST members in the first instance. An internal working group would also be set up to take this task further.
Action AD
14. University Research Conference 25th July, 2012
14.1 Update on the upcoming Research Conference – table of responses to call for papers
The Director of Research outlined arrangements for the Conference. The programme had been filled and further posters would be presented. It was agreed that any invitations offered to external attendees should be made very selectively so as to not affect the overall collegial
tone of the event.
- Equality and Diversity
15.1 To consider the draft Code of Practice for Selection of Academics for the Research Excellence Framework
The Chair explained that the Code of Practice was a specific requirement of the Research Excellence Framework submission. IG enquired whether recourse to appeal if not selected existed, and queried the role of the external advisors in the selection process. It was confirmed that the Code of Practice included an appeals process. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) averred that external advice would be taken into consideration but would not form the sole basis for selection. External advisers would be selected following consultation within departments as to which advisers to use. Efforts were being made to ensure that processes will be as transparent as possible as it was understood that decisions made could significantly affect future careers.
16. Dates of future meetings
The future dates of meetings were noted. The Chair warmly thanked the contribution and participation of BN and SE to the Research Committee over the last three years.
Draft:03.08.12
Approved by Chair:22.08.12
DISTRIBUTION
Members:Prof Clive Behagg (Chair);Dr Pete Bunyan, Dr Andrew Chandler, Dr Shirley Chubb, Dr David Cooper, Dr Andy Dixon, Dr Suzie Everley; Sarah Gilroy;Iain Greenlees; Dr David Mu ggleton; Dr Ben Noys; Ms Anna O’Neill; Dr Mark Willems;
Student Representatives: Ms Elizabeth Holmes; Mr James Gavin
Others:Ms Helen Aspell
Cc:Ms Isabel Cherrett; Ms Nicola Nathan; Ms Debbie Shattock
Page 1 of 5