On Not Getting ESRC Recognition - the Experience of the New Universities

On not getting ESRC recognition - the experience of the new universities

Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter, England, 12-14 September 2002

Andrew Hannan, Faculty of Arts & Education, University of Plymouth

© A Hannan, 2002

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank the ESRC for its help in preparing this paper and in particular Chris Read who has patiently answered all my questions and Rosemary Deem who supplied some valuable information. It is apparent that the ESRC and its subject area panels share my concerns about the lack of success of new universities in the research training recognition exercise. Thanks too to those who responded to my messages to BERAmail on this topic.

Introduction

This presentation will address the issues raised by the near-exclusion of the post-1992 universities from the ranks of those achieving ESRC recognition as research training outlets in Education.

'New' universities, the RAE and ESRC recognition of research training

UK institutions of higher education that have obtained the title 'university' since 1992 are sometimes known as 'new', at other times as 'post-1992' or, even, 'modern'. I'm tempted to combine all three into a more appropriate label, as 'newly post-modern', which does something to indicate our current state of dislocation in the third millennium. However, I'll mostly stick to 'new'. In addition, there are a number of colleges (university colleges and colleges of higher education) that are not associated with pre-1992 ('old') universities, which I shall label 'new university sector colleges'.

Having spent my entire lecturing career in departments of education outside the old university sector, I've obviously got a special interest in how education research in new universities is treated by the powers that be. If we look at the results of RAE 2001 we find that there is just one new university with a rating above 3a, viz Manchester Metropolitan (MMU) with a 4. In other UoAs the success of new universities was greater, such as Social Policy (three 4s), Sociology (three 4s), Politics (three 4s and one 5) and Psychology (three 4s and one 5). The failure of new universities to achieve more in Education is perhaps surprising given that so many (25)[1] were entered in this, one of the biggest UoAs.

In terms of the ESRC's research training recognition exercise, also carried out in 2001, the pattern is similar. In Education, only MMU of the new universities was successful in gaining any sort of approval, and that was for '+3' training (taking students to PhD who already have research training at Masters' level), rather than the '1+3' (including the one year's training at Masters' level) applied for. However, in this case only four new universities (Brighton, MMU, Plymouth and Sheffield Hallam) and one new university sector college (Canterbury Christ Church) took part in the exercise. This gives a 20% success rate with regard to some form of recognition being obtained, or 25% if only those with full university status are included. Only MMU and Sheffield Hallam applied for 1+3 recognition, the others applied for +3 only. In addition, in Education two new universities (Brighton and Sheffield Hallam) applied for recognition for professional doctorates, but neither of these applications was successful. No post-1992 institutions applied for recognition of their distance learning provision.

Elsewhere, Sociology got nine applications from new universities (five for 1+3 and four for +3 only) with three successes, two of which were for +3 only. Politics & International Relations received just three applications from new universities, but all three of these got what they applied for (one at 1+3 and the others at +3 only). The Politics panel, in its General Feedback to Applicants (ESRC Postgraduate Training Division, 2002a, p 7) actually stated 'We were worried about the small number of applications from new universities (only 3)'. The Social Policy, Social Work & Health Studies panel received applications from ten new universities and one new university sector college (the Royal College of Nursing Institute), but, as the panel notes (ESRC Postgraduate Training Division, 2002b, p 8), 'Those institutions where recognition was not awarded at all were, with one exception, post-1992 HEIs...'. Given that six institutions were treated in this fashion, five of them were post-1992. However, six new universities did obtain some recognition from the Social Policy panel, three at +3 and three at 1+3. In Psychology six new universities applied, all for 1+3 recognition, and four were successful (all getting the level of approval for which they had asked).

For the 16 subject areas included in the ESRC recognition exercise, the overall success rate for new universities (ie in terms of getting some form of recognition even if not that applied for, since 1+3 applicants could get +3 only approval) was 57.41% (31 from 54). Taking Education out of this reckoning raises the success rate to 60%. Only in the area of Social Policy, Social Work and Health Studies did applications from new universities reach double figures. In all other subject areas there were six or less applications from new universities, apart from in Sociology where, as already noted, there were nine. Of the new university sector colleges, only two applied for ESRC recognition in any subject area (Canterbury Christ Church in Education and the Royal College of Nursing Institute in Social Policy, Social Work & Health Studies); neither of these was successful. There were no applications from post-1992 institutions for recognition for professional doctorates outside of Education and none at all for distance learning modes.

For old universities, the average success rate across all subject areas was 91.85% (428 from 466). In Education 29 of the pre-1992 institutions were given some level of recognition (1+3 or +3 only) out of the 32 who applied, a success rate of 90.63%, which is very close to the norm. It was not, therefore, noticeably more difficult to get recognition in Education than in other subject areas for old universities, in contrast to the experience of their fellows from the post-1992 sector. In addition, seven of the ten old universities who put forward professional doctorates obtained approval, although neither of the two who sought recognition for their distance learning mode for research degree students were successful.

However, to bring RAE ratings and ESRC recognition results in Education together, it is worthy of note that a department from an old university rated 5 in RAE 2001 did not get the 1+3 recognition it sought. Also, only one 3a department (from an old university) got 1+3 recognition. Of the unsuccessful 3a departments two were in old universities, three were from new universities and one was from a new university sector college.

Overall, then, Education departments in new universities certainly did not do well in the ESRC recognition exercise, but it seems that several from old universities did no better. The success rate for old universities was a lot higher (90.63% for old compared to 25% for new), but the low number of entries from new universities and the fact that only one of them was from an institution rated at above a 3a level in RAE 2001, makes this an unfair comparison. On the basis of evidence from other subject areas it would appear that elsewhere the success rate for new universities was higher (60%), which is perhaps a fairer contrast. There is, however, a general tendency for low rates of application from new universities.

Low rate of application

Twenty-five new universities submitted to RAE 2001 in Education, but only four of these entered the ESRC research training exercise.[2] The reason for this might simply be that the other twenty-one didn't do any research training. However, looking at form RA3a from RAE 2001 this is not the case (HERO, 2002). The numbers of those undertaking and awarded research-based higher degrees in the year 2000 were entered as follows:

TABLE 1: Research students in new universities

Even before the 2001 exercise only MMU and Sheffield Hallam of the new universities had any sort of ESRC research training recognition, both for 'mode B'[3], which was awarded in 1997. However, even if we take these universities completely out of the reckoning, there were still sixty-one full-time and some 530 part-time research degree students in the year 2000 attending new universities who were following programmes of research training that had not obtained the ESRC's approval.

What is happening to these students? Is their research training inadequate? Should we be suspicious of the quality of the 35 PhDs awarded in Education by all new universities other than MMU and Sheffield Hallam? Certainly, there are some in positions of power who appear to think so, given that it seems likely to become more difficult for those without approved research training to obtain funding council support for their research students. However, it is in my experience still the case that external examiners for new university PhDs are very often from old universities themselves, which would suggest that the level reached by the candidates from new universities is as high as in the institutions of their external assessors. Perhaps, though, the problem is not with the quality of the outcome narrowly expressed in terms of the thesis submitted for assessment, but with the lack of the wider 'generic' knowledge and skills as social science researchers that the ESRC seems so keen for Education doctoral students to acquire. This is reflected in the statement in the Education panel's feedback (referring to successful applications for recognition) that, 'We were impressed with the extent of appropriate collaboration with other social science departments or faculties for generic aspects of research training' (ESRC Postgraduate Training Division, 2002c, p 8).

But why, in any case, didn't all those 25 new universities who had entered RAE 2001 also apply for ESRC recognition? I have no systematic evidence on this (who knows, I may apply to the ESRC for a research grant to collect the data!), but I have got some indicative material that gives some interesting insights into the perspectives of those in the new universities who were involved.

Some views from new universities

I sent the following email to the BERAmail list on 6 February 2002, just after the publication of the results of the ESRC research recognition exercise:

Are there any education departments in post-1992 universities who obtained ESRC recognition in the recent exercise as research training outlets other than Manchester Met for +3 only? Did any new university education department get 1+3 recognition?

I've looked through the results posted on the ESRC website and I can't find any others with +3 recognition and I can't find any at all with approval for 1+3 (but then again, it's not easy to search through a 53-page pdf file).

If I'm right, why is this when so many new universities (including my own) get recognition for other 'social science' disciplines? Did few of us enter? Were we judged more harshly than our colleagues or are we less good at research training? Do only 'old' universities know how to do it or are the ESRC requirements loaded in their favour?

Answers on an email, please....

On 11 February, I sent the message below as a follow-up:

In my email of 6 Feb I suggested that Education departments in 'new' universities had done very badly in the recent ESRC research training recognition exercise. I can now confirm that only one of them gained partial success, ie MMU with +3 only recognition. No such departments gained 1+3 recognition. ....

....

It appears that it is not yet possible to make comparisons to the success rate of 'new' universities for the other social sciences. However, I have been told that in Education only 5 ... new universities[4] actually applied for recognition.

So it seems that my first suggestion explains the situation at least in part. However, we must still ask why so few of us bothered to take part. Did the non-applicants simply know they weren't good enough? Is the process of application off-putting in some way that especially affects 'new' universities? Is the ESRC requiring the sort of 'research training' that only 'old' universities can supply? Is the ESRC model of education researchers as generic social scientists one we don't wish to be associated with? Are those we supervise to successful PhD completion people who wish to be professional researchers or are they generally professionals in education who wish to do and understand research?

Apart from which, of course, only one of the five that did apply was successful and then only in part.

Answers, then, still needed, on an email please...

The replies I received cannot, of course, be taken as representative of the views of those who work in the sector as a whole. In all, I had responses from two members of the panel (both from old universities) and from four others who were members of staff of new universities. However, I believe it is significant that none of those respondents whom I quote from below (the four from new universities) sent their replies to the BERAmail list. There appears to be a reluctance to criticise the ESRC recognition exercise publicly, perhaps for fear of offending powerful actors who might just possibly hold a grudge. These voices are obviously from those who feel strongest about the issues and their responses have to some extent been prompted by the way my messages to BERAmail posed the questions, although several of them go far beyond any of the possible explanations I offered. There may be few of them, but to me they speak volumes. Each person quoted below works (or has worked) at a different new university. All quotations have been anonymised and are used with the approval of the people concerned.

Respondent 1, who has institutional responsibility for Education research training, replied to the question about why so few new universities put themselves forward:

The reason that we did not apply is that it kept falling off the bottom of the priority list. Like all new universities, I imagine, we were trying to do a lot with small resources of time and money. Moreover, our chances of getting ESRC funded students seemed to me to be small. (Of course I have no evidence that this is the case, but the ESRC is so difficult if you come to its paperwork from outside, that my colleagues are put off applying for grants, let alone students...) And our students seem very happy with what we do provide in the way of research training, and also seem to benefit from it (judging by the difficulties of those students who cannot attend for one reason or another).

So while I have been 'actively considering' getting recognition, it hasn't had priority, and neither have any of my colleagues expressed any wish to move it up the priority list.

Respondent 2 sent me two emails, the first raised the issue of the relationship between the way new universities were treated in the ESRC recognition exercise and in the RAE:

I think you raise an important point - but the issue is wider than merely research training recognition. (At new universities) we've got our first 5s ... in other subjects ..., yet here as elsewhere Education stays mired in the 3s. There are real issues of patronage I think in the composition of the RAE panel for Education, and I think there is a real bias in the ESRC/RAE cabal patting themselves on the back for the kinds of work that they do and that they value. One hears from people who are on the RAE panel how certain kinds of work are privileged over other kinds, and of course only one post-1992 university was represented on the panel.

The second response took up points raised in my follow-up email:

In answer to your questions, I think the honest answer is that we are -- as you put it -- judged more harshly by our peers. There has always been a sense, in Education, of something of an inferiority complex about the nature of the discipline of education - whether it is a 'proper' field of study, and as in all cases of inferiority complex one sees a puffing up of the impedimenta of 'respectability'. I think this is the reason we, as educators in new universities do particularly badly vis-à-vis our colleagues in other disciplines in new universities. Above all, the educators in the established universities want to prove to their colleagues there that they are worthy of the name 'researcher', and if that means harsh and even unfair judgements on peers in new universities, so be it.

No, we didn't even bother to apply .. for ESRC recognition. Sadly, none of the potential reasons you give would be strictly accurate. I think we have people here (admittedly a small number) who are every bit as good if not better than colleagues in some of the 'recognised' places. No, the real reason for non-application, implicitly held if not explicitly stated is that we felt we wouldn't stand a chance because, quite frankly, we would be discriminated against. .... But I'd reiterate that it is not just about the recognition exercise: it infects all aspects of the research establishment in education: ESRC grants, RAE panel and recognition exercises. There is a nexus of quite influential people at the top of ESRC decision-making processes who are quite harmful to the prospects of educators in new universities, I feel. It might be worth suggesting a research seminar to ESRC on the theme?