Secretary: Mrs Kymette Peck
Research, Enterprise and Regional Affairs Office
Woolwich
Tel: 7902 Fax: 8630
Email:
ACADEMIC COUNCIL
RESEARCH & ENTERPRISE COMMITTEE
Minutes for the sixth meeting, to be held in 2006 on Wednesday 15th November at 2.15 pm in Room 167, Queen Mary Building, Greenwich Campus
06/6.1 PRESENT
Prof J. Humphreys (Chair)
Prof A. Reed (Vice-Chair)
Dr J. Dunne
Dr J. Jameson
Prof D. Isaac
Prof E. Meerabeau
Dr L. Catchpole
Mr M. S. Hume
Dr T. Javed
Mr N. Cormack
Dr S. Woodhead
Prof A. Westby
Prof E. Galea
Mrs L. Spencer
The Chair welcomed Mrs K. Peck as Secretary to the Research & Enterprise Committee and as Research Development Adviser within RERA, and Dr J. Dunne who was standing in for Dr J. Longmore (Acting Director of Research & Enterprise).
06/6.1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Prof C. Bailey, Prof M. Snowden, Prof Z. Sevic, Prof J. Morton, Mr J. Wallace, Prof C. Mackie, Mr D. Crapnell, Ms Y. Carey-Chorlton
06/6.2 MINUTES OF THE 5th MEETING OF THE RESEARCH & ENTERPRISE COMMITTEE HELD IN 2006 ON 27th SEPTEMBER
The following items were amended in the Minutes for the 5th meeting of the Research & Enterprise Committee:
· Item 5.3 Last paragraph, line 1, should read ‘Principal Lecturers for Enterprise (PLE)’ and not ‘Programme Leaders for Enterprise (PLE)’.
· Item 5.6.2 line 1, should read ‘H&SC have not as yet received their report’ and not ‘H&SC have received their report’.
· Item 5.5.2, paragraph 2, line 5, should read ‘VCG, who took the view that research staff should expect to undertake a reasonable amount of teaching’, and not ‘VCG, who took the view that a policy should be developed’.
06/6.3 MATTER ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
6.3.1 Agenda Item 6.3.1 - Incentives and/or rewarding staff engaging in enterprise activities:
A paper was tabled for discussion by Mr Hume. The main points arising from the discussion were:
· In terms of monetary prizes preference should be given to fewer awards but of greater amounts (eg.2 x £1,000 rather than 4 x £500). This will encourage staff to engage in enterprise activities and incentivise them to be competitive;
· In addition to a monetary prize a certificate and/or an engraved trophy should also be considered as an award for staff to make them feel valued by the University;
· To celebrate the achievement of this prestigious award it should be presented at a special event (eg. Schools’ awards ceremonies);
· The award should be recognised as an award for ‘enterprise’, but a definition of ‘enterprise’ would be required;
· It was suggested that there should be representation from the Schools both Directors of Research & Enterprise and an external representative from industry/commerce should be members to be added to the Assessment Panel.
ACTION: (i) Prof Reed and Mr Hume to continue to develop the awards scheme with reference to the corporate plan and comments received.
(ii) Mr Hume to explore sponsorship of the scheme.
6.3.2 Agenda Item 6.3.2 - RSAO to produce a list of supervisors who were supervising more than 6FTE MPhil/PhD students as first and second supervisor:
The Committee was informed that the following academics are supervising more than 6FTE MPhil/PhD students as first and second supervisor:
· Prof C. Bailey
· Prof E. Galea
· Prof Z. Sevic
ACTION: (i) Mrs L. Spencer to monitor the list and report back to the Committee.
6.3.3 Agenda Item 6.3.3 – Research Fellows with permanent contracts employed on EU projects:
The Chair stated that draft guidelines on the employment of contract staff have been prepared by Dr. Javed. Personnel and Finance are now involved in developing these guidelines which will be presented at a future meeting. Prof. Galea commented that research fellows who are already employed on EU contracts should not be expected to teach unless the teaching is directly related to their research project for which funding had been awarded.
ACTION: (i) Dr. Javed to develop guidelines and seek input from Personnel and Finance
6.3.4 Agenda item 6.3.5 – Summary of R & E sections of Schools’ARPDs:
RERA to identify a date for a special meeting of R &EC.
It was agreed to hold a special discussion at the next meeting on Research & Enterprise issues to inform the preparations of School ARPDs.
6.3.5 Agenda Item 6.3.8 - Response to QAA Draft Report on Special Review of Research Degree Programmes:
Mrs. Spencer is to present issues at the next R&EC meeting.
ACTION: (i) To discuss issues at the next meeting.
6.3.6 Agenda Item 6.3.9 - Progress with RAE
A general discussion on the progress towards the RAE took place. The following issues were raised:
· The University must improve its research website to raise its profile in line with the expectations of the RAE panels who may consider taking into account the University’s website presence.
· The Committee was informed that at present, the University’s website does not allow easy access to view research activities.
· The Committee sought clarification on whether the first named supervisors should be the principal investigator on research grants applications, and what the implications would be if they are not the principal investigators.
· The Chair requested that Schools should identify the key characteristics of a good research website.
ACTION: (i) The Research Manager to consult with Mr. Butler to discuss the improvements which should be made to the University’s web presence and its research portal as a matter of priority.
(ii) Schools to identify the key characteristics of a good research website.
(iii) The Research Manager to report on what the implications might be on RAE outcomes if the principal investigators are named first or second on research.
6.3.7 Agenda Item 6.3.11 – RAE Pilot Data Collection System:
· Dr. Javed is awaiting confirmation of the names of the University’s Officers and Administrators from Personnel, Finance and the Research Students Affairs Office.
· Dr. Javed reported that the RAE pilot system is now set up to input RAE data and all registered users should now take the opportunity to login and input data. The final version will be released by HEFCE on 3rd January, 2007.
· A comprehensive document on how to input RAE 2008 Data has been prepared and will be sent to all registered users of the RAE Data Collection System.
· Visits are being made to Schools by the Research Manager to discuss the RAE submission process.
· The Chair informed the Committee that Schools must make full use of the pilot RAE software to highlight any problems and to enter and save data for the Units of Assessments.
· Mrs. Spencer stated that she will investigate what the University’s data requirements are in relation to the Research Assessment Exercise.
ACTION: (i) Research Manager to send document on how to input the RAE 2008 Data to all registered users.
(ii) Research Manager to continue training for the academics, administrators and officers as users of the RAE Data Collection System.
(iii) Research Manager to monitor RAE progress in line with the Code of Practice.
(iv) Mrs. Spencer is to investigate the University’s data requirements in relation to the RAE.
6.3.8 Agenda Item 6.3.12 - Summary of MPhil/PhD Annual Progress Reports 2005-06:
(i) See minute 6.5.3 - Academic Regulations 2005/6 page 37 G6 ‘Review/appeal of an examination decision – Withdrawal of PhD student from programme’
(ii) Clarity was sought on whether staff enrolled on a PhD programme should be entitled to more than one day per week study time. The Chair confirmed that the Committee is not in position to set a policy on this matter.
6.3.9 Agenda Item 6.3.13 - Amendment to Academic Regulations for Research Awards 2005-6:
Mrs. Spencer discussed the Academic Regulations for Research Awards 2005-6. Some comments were raised by the Committee for clarification and amendments to the Academic Regulations were approved.
ACTION: (i) Mrs Spencer to amend the Academic Regulations and to ensure that the updated version is available on the University’s web pages.
6.3.10 Agenda Item 6.3.14 - Application for Higher Doctorate:
ACTION: (i) The Chair to review the process for assessing and awarding Higher Doctorates.
06/6.4 PREPARATIONS FOR RAE 2008
6.4.1 Agenda Item 6.4.2 - Exclusion of staff from RAE 2008
(i) Dr. Javed presented a paper on the process of provisional selection of RAE staff. He reported that to date only 4 responses have been received. This outcome was welcomed by the Chair which is consistent with the University’s policy on equality, and is line with the RAE Code of Practice.
(ii) It was further reported that, of the 4 staff who responded two were uncertain if they were eligible for submission with regards to the University’s criteria for selection of staff. All staff were given appropriate guidance and support about the appeal process and were requested to discuss their exclusion with School Directors of Research & Enterprise.
(iii) Prof. Isaac commented that it would appear that staff who responded to the letters on ‘exclusion’ probably were somewhat uncertain as to what the criteria for RAE selection was and/or did not have sufficient information about the process. He informed the Committee that he had discussed the reasons for exclusion with staff in his School who were not provisionally selected.
(iv) The Research Manager agreed with Prof. Isaac that the staff who contacted him appeared to be seeking more information on the RAE process and requested a copy of the University’s RAE Code of Practice.
ACTION: (i) The Chair requested that all queries relating to the RAE should be directly forwarded to the Research Manager in RERA
06/6.5 RESEARCH STUDENTS
6.5.1 Agenda Item 6.5.1 - Confirmation of Recommendation of Examiners: MPhil/PhD
Research & Enterprise Committee: 15 November, 2006
The Committee noted confirmation of PhD candidates and noted the internal supervisor for Rajkumar Durairaj should be Prof. N. Ekere and the supervisor for Rebecca Watkinson should be Prof. J. C. Mitchell. Therefore, corrections were required in the table which was presented in the minutes of the Medway Campus Research Degrees Committee (see page 26 of the R & EC minutes).
ACTION: (i) Mrs Spencer to make corrections as discussed.
6.5.2 Agenda Item 6.5.2 - Confirmation of Recommendation of Examiners: MPhil/PhD/EdD Research & Enterprise Committee: 21st June, 2006
The Committee noted confirmation of PhD candidates and stated that the candidate, named Kaushika Hettiaratchi should be deleted from the table presented in the ENPRDC minutes (see page 27 of the R & EC minutes) as the name was duplicated.
ACTION: (i) Mrs Spencer to make corrections as discussed.
6.5.3 Agenda Item 6.5.3 - Academic Regulations 2005/6 page 37 G6 ‘Review/appeal of an examination decision – Withdrawal of PhD student from programme.
· The Chair sought clarification on whether it was appropriate that a supervisor of a research student registered on a MPhil/Ph.D programme should be allowed to terminate his/her research programme if it was felt that the student failed to make reasonable progress on their programme of work.
· The Committee commented that normally, under the circumstances highlighted in (i) above, advice and approval should be sought from an external examiner via the Review Panel prior to any formal decision to terminate a MPhil/Ph.D research programme.
· Further discussion took place on whether the Committee should consider an appeal process where the supervisor and the external examiner are on the same Review Panel. The Committee agreed to accept this proposal and endorsed the appeal process.
ACTION: (i) Mrs. Spencer to revise the appeal process in the University’s Academic Regulations.
6.5.4 Agenda Item 6.5.4 - School/Institute Research Prizes
Prof Reed presented a paper on the introduction of School/Institute Research Prizes. The paper covered the following points:
· The University needs to address how to recognize ‘outstanding’ PhD projects
· Need to promote the best PhD programme by awarding a prize at an awards ceremony
· Both MPhil and PhD candidates should be eligible for nominations
· The criteria for ‘outstanding’ achievement on the MPhil/PhD research programme should be clarified by the School awarding panel
The Committee then discussed the following:
· An institutional template for the award should be designed for all Schools to use a basis for individual School awards
· Although the award will be merit based and awarded as an annual prize for the best MPhil/PhD research programme in terms of originality and research outcomes/outputs, it was suggested that the School has the right to make no annual award if it is deemed that there are no outstanding candidates.
ACTION: (i) Prof Reed to design an institutional template for Schools to use.
06/6.6 RESEARCH & ENTERPRISE INCOME 2005/6
6.6.1 Agenda Item 6.6.1 - Summary of R&E Income for 2005/6
· The Chair stated that he and Mr. Hume will be visiting Schools/Institutes to discuss progress on their Research and Enterprise plans and the achievement of income growth.
· Mr. Hume stated that the Committee is now required to consider income growth on a quarterly basis. The Chair will present a quarterly report to Court.
· The Chair stated that there may need to be re-categorisation of income across research, enterprise and consultancy activities. The Chair said that this would be considered further in discussions with the Heads of School and Finance.
· The Committee noted that there was only a 3% rise in income over the last year. Mr Cormack stated that the figures would need to be re-categorised as soon as possible as HESA return needs to be submitted by 1 December 2006.
ACTION: (i) Prof Westby and Mr Cormack to liaise urgently to re-categorise the figures where appropriate for submission to HESA.
06/6.7 RESEARCH & ENTERPRISE WORKSHOP PROGRAMME
6.7.1 Agenda Item 6.7.1 - Research & Enterprise Workshop Programme
Mr Hume presented a paper for discussion. The Committee discussed this proposal and approved the paper as presented.
ACTION: (i) Mr Hume to implement the Research & Enterprise Workshop Programme in consultation with Directors of Research & Enterprise.
06/6.8 RESEARCH & ENTERPRISE CONFERENCE/EVENT
6.8.1 Agenda Item 6.8.1 – A paper was presented to the Committee at the meeting