UOA 28, Mechanical, Aeronautical and Manufacturing Engineering

Transcription

1 UOA 28, Mechanical, Aeronautical and Manufacturing Engineering This statement should be read alongside the statement for Main Panel G and the generic statement. Panel G Absences of chair and declaration of interests from members 1. Sub-panel members will leave the room when discussion takes place regarding any institution in which they have a declared a major interest. Major interests are defined as an individual s employing institution, any institutions at which an individual has been employed since January 2001, any institution at which the individual has been engaged in substantial teaching or research since January 2001, and any institution at which the individual s partner and/or an immediate family member is employed. The sub-panel has identified a deputy chair, who will chair the panel when the chair has to leave the room, and will act on their behalf when the chair is unavailable. 2. The members of the sub-panel will declare minor interests to the secretariat, in line with guidance provided in Annex 4, and the chair will determine appropriate methods for handling any conflicts of interest arising. Members will not necessarily withdraw from the meetings in such cases. UOA descriptor 3. The UOA includes engineering research in: acoustics; aeronautical engineering; automotive engineering; bio-medical engineering; computational methods; control; dynamics; design; failure analysis; fluid power; fluid mechanics; fluidics; heat transfer; manufacturing (technology, processes and systems); engineering management; physical ergonomics; materials; material processing; maritime engineering; mechatronics; optical engineering; process engineering; solid mechanics; systems engineering; thermodynamics; turbomachinery and propulsion; and vibration. It also includes pedagogic research in mechanical, manufacturing and aeronautical engineering. UOA boundaries 4. The sub-panel membership has experience of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary work and of work at the boundary of this UOA. The subpanel is confident that it can assess such work, and its membership has broad-ranging expertise to enable this. 5. However, where a part of a submission involves a discipline in which the sub-panel does not have sufficient specialist expertise, that part of the submission will be cross-referred to other subpanels of Main Panel G or to sub-panels outside the main panel, and additional specialist advice will be sought where necessary. Any research outputs which are focused on the pedagogy of engineering will be cross-referred to one of the sub-panels in Main Panel G with pedagogic expertise. 6. Any advice sought will be used by the subpanel to inform its deliberations on the assessment of a particular aspect of a submission, but the ultimate recommendations to the main panel will rest with the sub-panel. Research staff 7. The outputs of Category C staff will be treated in the same way as those of Category A staff, but only where departments demonstrate a meaningful, long-standing relationship between the individual and the submitting department. Evidence of such relationships must be provided in an entry in RA5c and might include, eg, coauthorship with established Category A staff or co-supervision of research students. 8. Departments may also cite the contribution of Category B, C and D staff in RA5 where such staff have made a substantial contribution and had an enduring impact on either the research environment and/or the esteem of the department. The sub-panel will take due account of such evidence in its assessment. 9. The sub-panel expects that four outputs will be provided for all staff returned within a department; four is also the maximum number of outputs permitted. However it recognises that some individual circumstances might preclude this, such as for those listed in paragraphs of the statement for Main Panel G and in the case of newly recruited staff including early career researchers. This will include staff new to academia (eg, from industry) and staff who have RAE 01/2006 (G) 53

2 had a significant career break during the assessment period, or who have spent significant periods of time away from research (eg, while establishing a spin-out company). Departments should therefore indicate in RA5b where an individual researcher has had such a significant career break (length of time to be specified), or is new to academe, and in consequence has returned fewer than the maximum number of outputs. In those cases that are accepted by the sub-panel, the quality of the outputs will be assessed as per any other output, but the missing outputs will be disregarded and not carried forward into the final quality profile. 10. In reviewing the esteem indicators, the subpanel will expect to see evidence of contributions for all categories of submitted researchers and across the range of experience. When assessing the quality of the esteem indicators the sub-panel will give due consideration to the length of time individuals have been active in academe. Research outputs 11. All forms of research output will be treated equally, with no distinction being made between the types of outputs returned. The sub-panel expects to receive outputs primarily in the form of: research monographs, in whole or part; authored articles in professional journals; conference contributions; conference reports; descriptions of new devices and instrumentation; descriptions of new processes and materials; patents awarded; published papers in peerreviewed journals; software; and technical reports. 12. It is expected that an author who declares coauthorship of an output will have made a substantial contribution to it. Neither the order of authors, nor the number of authors will be considered important. The sub-panel expects to receive the same output from a department only once in any submission. Outputs which are jointly authored by members of the same department should not normally be provided by more than one individual from that department. Where a jointly authored output has been submitted by two or more individuals from the same department in a submission, details of the distinct contribution to the output which each individual made should be provided in the Other relevant details field in RA2 (maximum length 100 words). 13. Those individuals who first entered the academic profession on employment terms that qualified them for submission to RAE2008 as Category A staff on or after 1 August 2003 will be considered as early career researchers. Such individuals may submit fewer than the maximum number of outputs, as follows: those who started between 1 August 2003 and 31 July 2004 may submit a minimum of three outputs; those who started between 1 August 2004 and 31 July 2005 may submit a minimum of two outputs; and those who started after 1 August 2005 may submit a minimum of a single output. In such cases, the quality of the outputs will be assessed as per any other output, but the missing outputs will be disregarded and not carried forward into the final quality profile. 14. The sub-panel will base its assessment of the quality of outputs on its judgement of the following characteristics (though the relative weightings of these to each other may vary for any particular output): a. The advancement of knowledge and understanding. b. Originality and innovation. c. Impact on theory, analytical techniques, products and processes, including design, production and management, policy and practice at national and international levels. d. Influence and reach. e. User take-up in academe and/or industry. 15. Departments must make use of the Other relevant details field in RA2 to explain why the submitted outputs have been selected and to emphasise the impact, importance and value of a particular cited output, eg, the award of a prize or the impact that the research has had on industrial practice or on other areas of research. Departments are instructed to ensure that such evidence is succinct, externally referenced where appropriate, and not a synopsis of the output, nor a volunteered opinion as to the quality of an output. Reference to the citation frequency of an output will not be considered as evidence of quality. Where claims are made relating to impact 54 RAE 01/2006 (G)

3 on industry or similar, the name and contact details of a senior industrialist must be given so that claims can be verified. There is a limit of 100 words; it is expected that for most outputs sufficient information would be provided in significantly fewer words. 16. When considering journal articles, conference papers and other outputs the sub-panel may consider the editorial and refereeing standards as part of the indication of quality, but absence of these standards will not be taken to mean an automatic absence of quality. 17. The sub-panel will initially consider all submissions. It will then assign responsibility to subject specialists within the sub-panel to examine the cited outputs. The review will examine work across the whole range of outputs including those outputs in media not subject to rigorous editorial and refereeing standards, as may be the case for new journals, books, chapters in books and other outputs in less familiar media. Textual commentary 18. Departments should split RA5a into two distinct sections: the first addressing the issues relating to an assessment of the research environment (details of the research strategy, the structure of the department and the staffing policy) and the second relating to the indicators of esteem. Details of what should be provided in the two sections are given below. Research environment 19. The elements described in paragraphs will be considered in the construction of the research environment profile. Research students and research studentships 20. The sub-panel will consider the number of research doctorates awarded and the number of research students and research assistants in the department, normalised by submitted staff FTE, as indicators of the quality of the research environment. 21. Assessment will be made using ranked lists but in the context of the statements on environment in the textual commentary. Research strategy 22. A brief statement of the department s research strategy, which should include: a. An evaluation of research plans described in RAE2001. b. A statement about the main objectives of planned research activities to take place over the five years following the submission date (or longer if appropriate). Research structure 23. Departments are invited to provide the following information about their research environment if applicable: a. Details of the operational research structure of the department, referring to RA1 to define members of research groups (if appropriate), their principal activities, how they operate (including in relation to the non-research activities of the unit), and their main achievements. b. Mechanisms and practices for promoting research, and sustaining and developing an active and vital research culture. c. Any enhancements during the review period to the nature and quality of the research infrastructure (eg, use of the Science Research Investment Fund or other investment), including significant equipment or research facilities. d. The provision of training and facilities for research students. e. Arrangements for supporting interdisciplinary or collaborative research, with specific exemplars of such activity. This could include details of joint appointments with other departments. f. Arrangements for supporting national and international collaborations, with specific exemplars of such activity. This could include details of international visitors and the type of activity undertaken with these colleagues. g. Information on the arrangements for supporting relationships with research users (including industry and commerce), and, RAE 01/2006 (G) 55

4 where appropriate, on the account taken of government policy initiatives and objectives. h. The arrangements for supporting the commercialisation of research ideas. i. Other UOAs to which related work has been submitted and any difficulties of fit between the departmental structure and the UOA framework. j. Any other issues that departments would wish to highlight. 24. Departments should not provide any quantitative information such as doctoral awards or number of types of output at the research group level, as the sub-panel will not consider any such evidence in its assessment. Staffing policy 25. Departments are invited to provide the following information about their staffing policy: a. Arrangements for developing and supporting staff in their research, including how this support sits with their non-research duties. b. Arrangements for developing the research of colleagues new to research and for integrating them into a wider, supportive research culture. c. If applicable, details on how the input of Category C staff adds to the strength, coherence and research culture of the department. d. If applicable, details of how the departure of staff in Categories B and D has affected the strength, coherence and research culture of the department at the census date, or details of any significant and lasting contributions made before departure. e. Arrangements to ensure sustainable staffing structures including strategic planning in the recruitment and retention of staff. Esteem indicators 26. Departments should list indicators of peer esteem and national and international recognition that relate to the staff submitted at the research group or departmental level as appropriate. These may include the following: plenary addresses or keynote papers at major conferences prize-winning publications honours, prizes and awards (indicating whether by nomination) award of prestigious and/or externally funded fellowships (eg, Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng), Royal Society, EPSRC Advanced Fellowships, EPSRC Senior Fellowships) awarded patents or licences election to learned societies and associations (eg, RAEng, Royal Society), and fellowship of professional institutions learned society engagement editorships or editorial board membership leadership of consortia participation in advisory, review, funding or standard setting bodies contribution to government committees, national/international advisory councils and boards for industry collaborative research including details of companies contributing significant funding, together with evidence of the nature and timescale of the relationship consultancies, company directorships research exploitation by industry EU collaborative research joint or sponsored appointments or secondments with industry or commerce 56 RAE 01/2006 (G)

5 spin-out company activities other evidence of esteem in which researchers are held by practitioners in their field. 27. In considering such evidence, the sub-panel will take into account the career stage of the particular individual, where relevant, and the subpanel will expect to see evidence of contributions for all categories of staff submitted, in proportion to their time as active independent researchers, commensurate with their time as Category A members of academe. 28. Departments are also asked to provide information on the following at the group or department level as appropriate, to inform the sub-panel of achievements during the assessment period: a. Exemplars of collaborations with industry or other end-users of research, including in particular long-standing partnerships and knowledge transfer. b. Exemplars of any commercialisation activity in terms of patents awarded, creation of spinouts, or wealth creation. c. Exemplars of the impact of departmental research activity on engineering practice and/or the quality of life. Research income 29. The sub-panel will consider the value of research grant and contract income per submitted staff FTE as an important indicator of esteem. 30. Assessment will be made using a ranked list, in the context of the statements on esteem in the textual commentary. No source of income will be regarded as having higher weighting than another. 31. When forming a judgement the sub-panel will recognise that some areas of research within its remit are less resource-intensive than others. 32. Departments should not provide any quantitative information on research income at the group level as the sub-panel will not consider any such evidence in its assessment. Applied research and practicebased research 33. All types of research will be given equal weighting by the panel. The following definition for applied research will be used: Applied research involves a process of systematic investigation within a specific context in order to solve an identified problem in that context. It aims to create new or improved systems (of thought or production), products, processes, materials, devices, or services which have an impact on society through enhanced wealth-creation and quality of life. 34. Some characteristics of applied research are that: a. It is informed by an intellectual infrastructure of scholarly research in the field. b. It applies and/or transfers enhanced knowledge, methods, tools and resources from pure research and developmental research. c. It contributes to scholarship in the field through systematic dissemination of the results. d. The outcomes of applied research may be specific to the situation in which the research has been applied, although the methods/tools evolved are often transferable. 35. The possible outputs of applied research in engineering include: research monographs, in whole or part; authored articles in professional journals; conference contributions; conference reports; descriptions of new devices and instrumentation, descriptions of new processes and materials; evidence of design artefacts, patents awarded, published papers in journals; software; and technical reports. Individual staff circumstances 36. Departments must note in RA5b any individual staff circumstances that have significantly affected their contribution to the submission (eg, disability, periods of sick leave, RAE 01/2006 (G) 57

6 career breaks, maternity/paternity leave, or who have spent significant periods of time away from research, such as time spent establishing a spinout company etc). Departments should refer to paragraphs 7-10 above and the list in paragraph 39 of the generic statement. 37. For each member of Category C staff returned, departments should provide evidence of the relationship between the individual and the department in RA5c. Evidence of the relationship might include, for example, co-authorship with established Category A staff and co-supervision of research students. Departments may also choose to highlight the contribution of Category C staff in RA5a where such staff have made a particular contribution to the research environment or esteem indicators. Working methods 38. The assessment will be one of peer review based on the sub-panel s professional judgement in the context of the definitions of the quality levels, ie, that the individual elements of the return will be assessed as being; 4* of a quality that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour 3* of a quality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour but which nonetheless falls short of the highest standards of excellence 2* of a quality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour 1* of a quality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour Unclassified of a quality that falls below the standard of nationally recognised work, or work which does not meet the published definition of research for the purposes of this assessment. In the assessment of outputs, world-leading quality will be taken to include outputs which are among the leading in the world for their discipline. 39. In arriving at the final quality profile for the submission, the sub-panel will assign 50% weighting to research outputs, 20% to research environment and 30% to esteem indicators. 40. The sub-panel will initially consider all submissions in their entirety before assigning responsibility to subject specialists within the subpanel to the cited outputs. 41. In this initial exercise sub-panel members will select from a range of evidence to form an initial judgement of the outputs, which might include: information provided in the Other relevant details field in RA2; the title; the journal or conference (taking account of the refereeing standards where appropriate); the abstract; and the conclusions. Following this initial assessment, the subject specialists will examine in detail, across the range of media and the full range of anticipated quality levels, a proportion of the submitted outputs, sufficient to develop an informed view of the quality level. In no case will the proportion of outputs examined in detail be less than 10%. 42. The sub-panel will assess the quality of environment factors, both holistically and in the context of individual groups where provided. The holistic assessment will include an assessment of quantitative information on numbers of research students and research assistants, normalised by submitted staff FTE. This will be supplemented with a profile based on quantitative data on doctorates awarded, normalised by submitted staff FTE. Together, this assessment will then inform the production of a quality profile for environment, with half of the profile for environment being derived from doctorates awarded per submitted staff, and half of the profile being derived from the other evidence on the environment. 43. The sub-panel will assess the quality of esteem factors across the whole submission. This will be supplemented with a profile based on quantitative data on research grant and contract income per submitted staff FTE. Together, these assessments will inform the production of a quality profile for esteem, with half of the profile for esteem being derived from income per 58 RAE 01/2006 (G)

7 submitted staff FTE and half of the profile being derived from the other evidence of esteem indicators. 44. The sub-panel will seek to reach a unanimous decision on each assessment. Only where this proves to be impossible will the subpanel resort to voting, with the chair (or, if appropriate, the deputy chair) having the casting vote. It is expected that such voting will rarely be necessary. 45. Wherever possible, a comparative review will be carried out with other panels to ensure that assessment of research outputs in closely related areas are assessed to the same standard as that in UOA 28. Additional information requested 46. The standard data analyses listed in Annex 7 will be used by the sub-panel to inform its assessment of each department. 47. The sub-panel will use doctoral degrees awarded per FTE to assess the quantitative element of the research environment quality profile. Research student and research assistant numbers per FTE will be used in the consideration of the non-quantitative element of the research environment quality profile. 48. Income by source per FTE will be used by the sub-panel in assessing the extent to which the strategies described in the department s research environment (in RA5a) are reflected in the funding it has received. RAE 01/2006 (G) 59

8 60 RAE 01/2006 (G)