Minutes of the Research Staff Committee

GSB 3OCT11 19

KeeleUniversity

Minutes of the Research Staff Committee

Held on 15 June 2011 at 2.15pm in RES Board Room

Present:

Paul Yates, Centre for Professional Staff Development (Chair)

Paul Campbell, RPCH

John Glossop, RSTM

John Staniforth, EPSAM

Sarah Longwell, Careers Service

Caroline Pugh, RES (Secretary)

Apologies:

Rama Thirunamachandran, Acting Pro V-C for Research and Enterprise/Acting Dean of the Graduate School

Peter Hooper, Research and Enterprise Services

Brian Lorimer, Human Resources

Jenny Smith, University and College Union

Absent:

Claire Ashmore, RI Manager, PCHS

1. APOLOGIES

The above apologies were noted.

2.MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2011 were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting.

3.MATTERS ARISING

Item 2 – PY reported he had spoken to Clare Wydell, Faculty Research Office Manager for Humanities and Social Sciences regarding a representative for Life Sciences. No name has been suggested; however he had received a positive response and hoped that there will be a representative in the future.

Item 3.1 – PY reported the Broadening Horizons course scheduled for 23-24th May had not run as only four people had registered. He stated the intention is to run the course in September and open it up to PGR students in addition to research staff. He noted Keele would be required to pay for the trainer now regardless of whether the course is run. SL noted current PGR course attendance levels are good so she was hopeful they would attend. PY reported he had purchased some equipment necessary for the course.

Item 3.2 – PY noted Brian Lorimer was unable to attend this meeting. He reported he had discussed the statistics with him prior to the meeting and he would report back at the next meeting.

ACTION: Brian Lorimer

Item 4 – PY reported he has not yet completed this action noting he would give a general update on the scheme in agenda item 6.

Item 6 – PY noted the importance of this item remaining on the agenda. He reported the new Pro-VC for Research and Enterprise Services Mark Ormerod has not yet taken up his post, stating he would meet with him following his August start. SL noted a member of the Law department may be interested in volunteering to be a champion. PY stated he would follow-up on her suggestion.

ACTION: Paul Yates

JS enquired if the mentoring scheme will start this year. PY reported the details were on the Research Staff web pages for RI’s to start using and that this committee would monitor the numbers using the scheme.

4.MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES OF RESEARCH STAFF NETWORK MEETING HELD ON 11TH MAY 2011

PY noted the meeting had been held during the Graduate School Symposium to try and boost attendance but unfortunately it had not worked. PY drew the committee’s attention to the following agenda items;

Item 4 –PY noted the cessation of Roberts funding, reporting PGR fees have been increased by £200.00 to cover their training needs. Research Staff should have an element for their development built in to future grants. PY stated he will ascertain how to access that training money and assumed it would be around the same amount.

ACTION: Paul Yates

Item 5 –PY enquired if PC had anything to report from the recent Research Committee meeting. PC replied that there was nothing relevant to this committee.

Item 10 –PY reported he has developed a workshop as part of the Knowledge programme which will run next Wednesday. No bookings have been taken as of yet.

SL enquired how Keele compares to other Universities in terms of numbers of research staff and their involvement in networks. PY reported that it varies between institutions with some having a small group of staff with tight networks whilst others have more staff with wider networks. PY noted he believes Keele fall between the two categories. SL noted the need to find what works best for Keele’s research staff stating the importance of the network and committee in providing them with a voice. JS stated he felt interest in the network and committee had fluctuated over the years. PY noted he had thought high profile Vitae programmes would be supported but this had not been the case with Broadening Horizons. PY reported the number of research staff had remained constant over time. SL suggested a rise in student numbers may have contributed to the lack of interest due to time constraints. PY stated the need for more senior support and the importance of research income noting the lack of a permanent Pro-VC for Research and Enterprise and Dean of the Graduate School for almost 12 months. PY noted the suggestion to hold a networking event and SL agreed noting the importance of networking. PY reported he had attended a Vitae session on networking and resilience and it was a very topical issue at the moment stating he is happy to commit the necessary funds if the committee felt it was worthwhile. PY stated he felt Broadening Horizons was problematic as is centres on how to move out of research which is not what most researchers want to do. SL disagreed stating she believed it to be about focussing your career and making long terms goals noting that was how it could be marketed. PY noted the need to be more proactive and suggested visiting RI’s to do a five minute commercial. Enquiring if research staff have times when they meet within RI’s JG, JS and PC confirmed they did not. JG noted the problem is researchers do not talk with other researchers even in their own department and that they have become more insular over the last five years. JG stated he believes Keele does not have a research culture at any level and that he would like to see the network survive and grow but nothing happens. SL noted the need to integrate research and teaching. JS stated 110 research staff is too small a number for a University with ambition. SL noted research staff were spread across a number of sites and JG noted there would be considerably less research staff without the Medical School. PY stated that whilst the committee could not produce an immediate solution they had defined the problem. SL stated she was hopeful the new Pro-VC for Research and Enterprise would assist with the problem and contribute to the staff being less insular. PY noted the necessity to contact the researcher when they first arrive at Keele but recognised they are often the lone researcher on the Knowledge programme so can be isolated. PC stated he found it difficult to demonstrate the relevance of the network to research staff and could not e-mail staff telling them what interesting and relevant information they will find out if they attend a network meeting. He noted it could be a cultural problem at Keele which would need changing from senior level. SL suggested holding mini Symposiums in each RI. PY noted that would work for Primary Care but not for other RI’s. PY reported Keele would have to run Broadening Horizons as the trainer has already been paid for but noted he would explore other Vitae programmes such as networking and resilience. He suggested asking research staff what programmes that would like to attend and moving forward based on the responses. SL suggested training on social networking such as LinkedIn. PY noted he is aware other Universities use LinkedIn for research staff and asked the committee how many members use it. No members reported using LinkedIn. PC enquired what LinkedIn is. SL reported staff can create a professional profile which can be seen by other professionals and that Manchester University use it. PY stated he was happy to set up a group for Keele research staff noting the Midlands Hub use it.

ACTION: Paul Yates

5.RESEARCHER DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

PY reported Vitae had produced some resources relating to the framework and distributed “The Research Development Framework” leaflet to the committee noting a copy will be sent to each member of research staff. PC noted the framework is quite complex. PY reported Vitae had also produced a presentation and CPD tool reporting he had arranged a workshop for next week but only one person had registered so far. Noting the importance of the framework for the future PY asked if the committee had any comments. None were received.

6.HR EXCELLENCE IN RESEARCH BADGE

PY reported he had made progress with the analysis and action plan and felt it was not as erroneous as first thought and was almost ready for submission. He stated he had mapped what Keele do against the Concordat and produced an Action Plan having looked at what Heriot-Watt, Cardiff and York universities do. Whilst noting Keele isnot obliged to publish the Action Plan on the web he asked the committee for any amendments and their subsequent approval for it to be posted. SL asked for the achieved tick to be removed from section C3 of the Gap Analysis noting whilst the Careers Service do see research staff it is not part of their remit as they are only funded to see students. PY agreed to remove the achieved tick and enquired how research staff should access careers advice. SL noted that whilst the Careers Service provides workshops research staff are required to pay privately for individual advice. PY suggested adding it to the Action Plan under section C as an area of provision which is missing with exploring sources of independent professional careers advice as the action. All agreed. PY asked for any further comments and none were given. PY noted the application deadline of 23rd June, reporting he will upload the plan and analysis to the web and await the result. JS expressed doubts over whether Keele should apply for the badge. SL noted it may be useful in attracting grant funding. JG enquired how many Universities have the badge. PY noted 30 – 40 including Aston, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Exeter, Heriot-Watt, Salford and York. PY reported Warwick had decided they were not ready to apply but noted as Keele’s bid was almost ready delaying was an option. JS noted it may be beneficial from an external perspective as it could be used to sell research but may not be valuable internally when wanting to make changes to the research ethos in the future. PY reported the badge would be reviewed internally every two years and externally every four years so changes could be made. JS enquired if the V-C had been consulted about the badge. PY noted he had not but felt he would be pleased if it is awarded. Referring to the issue of careers advice in the action plan SL noted the need for advisors to understand academia and that buying in independent advice would not work. PY asked the committee for a decision on whether to press ahead with the application. JS noted he had reservations but believes it could be a positive development and approved the application. PC agreed. JG enquired how the application will be assessed. PY replied once the action plan is acknowledged if suitable the badge is awarded. Noting failure to achieve the badge did not seem possible JG questioned its value. PY acknowledged his point but noted Keele does not want to be one of the few Universities who don’t have it. JS noted it may be harder to get in the future. SL agreed noting it may be better to apply now and enquired if the badge is lost if points from the action plan have not been met by the four yearly review. JS stated he believes the gap analysis should be published on the website and PY agreed. JG noted that as the internal review is in two years time the committee should review the action plan to ensure achievability and enquired if the internal review would be carried out by the committee. PY reported it would with the committee publishing a review of the action plan. PY asked the committee for comments and their approval by the end of Tuesday 21st June after which he will publish both documents on the website. JG asked what the benefit would be of publishing both documents. JS stated he believed Keele should be transparent over what problems there are. JG enquired what the committee would do if the review was contested once published noting it leaves the committee open to criticism. JS noted that was one of the reasons he believed the committee should publish. PY agreed noting it would at least indicate research staff had looked at the plan and were interested. SL noted the importance of reviewing the plan carefully prior to publication and enquired if it needed to be approved by senior staff before going on the web. PY reported the minutes from the meeting go to Research Committee with this issue as a starred item and then on to Senate. SL noted she felt senior approval is important and PY agreed to delay the submission of the application and the publication of the gap analysis. JG suggested applying for the badge with the action plan but delaying the publication of the gap analysis until after the next Research Committee (Secretary’s note - 1st November). All agreed. PY reiterated his request to receive any further comments and final approval by the end of Tuesday 21st June.

ACTION: Paul Yates

7.VITAE UPDATE

PY reported he had attended a meeting of the Advisory Group the previous week at which was announced a Leadership in Action course to be held in Warwick on 8-10th August. PY noted it was suitable for both Research Staff and PhD students at a cost of £50 per person plus travel costs for the three days. PY stated he would advertise the course and reserve a few spaces. PY enquired if the committee felt RI’s would meet the costs. JS noted it was a possibility. PY noted the course falls in the next financial year (2011/12) but the Centre for Professional Staff Development could meet the cost or offer match funding from this year’s budget if payment could be made in advance.

8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

None

9. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

28th September 2011 at 2:15pm in the RES boardroom.

1