MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL RESEARCH AND IMPACT COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL RESEARCH AND IMPACT COMMITTEE Meeting Held: 18 th February 2016 Present: Apologies: In Attendance: Professor Dinah Birch (Chair), Mr Harry Anderson, Professor Ken Badcock, Professor Fiona Beveridge, Dr Alison Fairclough, Mr Alex Ferguson, Professor Barry Godfrey, Professor Malcolm Jackson, Ms Sarah Jackson, Professor Graham Kemp, Dr Karen Linley, Sir Colin Lucas, Dr Roger Platt, Dr Andrew Scott, Mr Phil Sykes, Professor Ric Williams. Professor Bob Burgoyne, Professor Gavin Brown. Mr Alastair Flett (Secretary) 1. Disclosures of Interest Members of the Committee were invited to disclose any interests in relation to the items on the agenda. None were raised. 2. Minutes of the Previous Meeting a. Minutes of the Meeting Held 25 th November 2015 The Committee AGREED the minutes of the previous meeting, held 25 th November 2015 as an accurate record. 3. Chair s Report 3.1 Action Taken by the Chair Since the Last Meeting i. A report of action taken by the Chair since the last meeting. AGREED:- The action taken to approve minor amendments to wording in the Research Data Management Policy to improve clarity, on the advice of the RDM Steering Group, should be endorsed. 3.2 Updates i. An oral report on relevant University and sector developments since the last meeting. 1/6

2 a. APVC Recruitment i. Professor Ric Williams had been appointed APVC Research and Impact for Science and Engineering. i Recruitment for the equivalent post in the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences was in hand. Recruitment for the APVC Enterprise role was also underway. b. Stern i. The Stern Review of REF had now commenced, with a call for evidence being made. i The key driver for the review was the promotion of efficiency in research assessment. The outcomes of the Stern Review would set the agenda for the next REF. Among the options understood to be under consideration were: % submission rates; - Sampling; - Reducing the number of outputs under consideration; - Environmental statements at institutional rather than subject level; - Greater use of metrics. c. Innovate UK i. The University had not made a separate submission to the BIS consultation on how the government could maximise the opportunities from Innovate UK s integration into Research UK. Instead it would contribute to a wider Russell Group response. This was currently under development. 4. Draft Research and Impact Strategy and Implementation Plan i. The newly approved Research and Impact Strategy, and associated draft implementation plan. 2/6

3 i The Research and Impact Strategy had been approved by Council, along with the other elements of Our Strategy 2026, on 10 th February. The draft implementation plan had been developed by the Research and Impact Operations Group (RIOG). This would be developed further over the next three months. The final implementation plan would need to be extensive if it was to support effectively the delivery of the Research and Impact Strategy. Prioritisation and phasing would be key. v. Two themes had been identified as immediate priorities:- Research leadership; Supporting impact generation. vi. v vi ix. Research leadership was crucial. Ways of engendering and supporting this that were sensitive to the differing research cultures across the three faculties needed to be found. Open Access was a key element of the Research and Impact Strategy. Ways to promote this would be considered. The tone of the document would be important if the implementation plan were to successfully support delivery of the Strategy. It would need to strike the correct balance between being clear and directive, while not disengaging staff. The language would also need to read equally well across all three faculties. It would be important to fully assess the resourcing implications of the implementation plan, and to understand what might need to be de-prioritised to support the immediate focus on research leadership and impact generation. The implementation plan would need to work in harness with the University s internal Planning and Performance Cycle to do this. x. It was also necessary to communicate the benefits of a strong research culture and environment to students. An improving research profile should play an important part in the University student recruitment strategy. AGREED:- xi. x Research leadership and supporting impact generation were the correct priorities at this stage. As part of the development of the document, consideration should be given to ways in which the relativities of the implementation plan were expressed. For example, it was clear that partnerships and international activity were enablers rather than priorities in their own right. 3/6

4 AGREED TO RECOMMEND to Senate:- xi The document received should be taken forward for further development, to be finalised by the end of the session. 5. Planning and Performance 5.1 Performance: Outputs Assessment and Policy Principles Programme 2015 i. A report on the 2015 Output Assessment and Policy Principles Programme. i As part of the post REF2014 framework developed by the University, it had been agreed that individual data relating to eligible staff, anonymised beyond level 2, indicating the following, would be collected:- Output assessment data; Any known individual circumstances that might affect the number of outputs; Confirmation or otherwise that the individual is meeting agreed research and impact policy principles judged against their total contribution to outputs, environment and impact. A code of practice to support the implementation of the assessment framework was under development for use in The quality of research outputs produced by staff was a key strand of both Our Strategy 2026, and the supporting Research Strategy. v. The results of the annual exercise would inform the position of departments on the research axis of the Raising Performance Matrix, and, through this, the University s internal Planning and Performance Cycle. vi. v The data, when compared to REF2014 actual, suggested that the calibration was broadly accurate, although it needed to be recognised that this was a new process, and would require time to bed-in effectively. Some gaps remained in the collection of data, but these were being addressed by the Faculties. Other issues to be addressed in due course, and to be supported by the Code of Practice, included:- Linking in the use of data to the PDR process; Greater consistency of understanding amongst staff of the process and the questions being asked; How judgements were evidenced; 4/6

5 Improving feedback to individuals; The need to persuade staff that this was a continuous process, and not simply focussed on the next REF. vi ix. As a result of this and other management processes, the research performance of 64 staff in the Faculty of HLS was being closely monitored. The Faculty of Science and Engineering were also closely managing a number of individuals. It was essential that the primary method of engaging with individuals in this way was the PDR process rather than as a direct result of the reading programme. x. The Committee was generally encouraged by the data, the fact it had been collected, and the significant increase in staff felt to be meeting the University s Research Policy Principles, from 653 in REF 2014, to 897 in Even allowing for inconsistencies in approach across the programme, this clearly showed positive movement. xi. It was clear from the data, and the approaches outlined by the Faculties, that the University was approaching issues of research performance in a more detailed and structured way than before. 5.2 Institutional Research and Impact Performance Report: Q1 2015/16 i. The institutional Research and Impact Performance Report for Quarter 1. i This report, produced as an analysis of performance to October 2015, still referred to the KPIs set as part of the previous University Strategy. This would be updated for future reports. Of the Research and Impact KPIs, the measure for research income per staff FTE was below target. This was partly driven by an increase in staff, many of whom were Early Career Researchers. Research income would remain a challenging measure of success. The environment in this area was increasingly competitive. Steps were currently being taken to establish better relationships with the Research Councils, but this would be a long term initiative. There was also a need to diversify sources of funding. 5.3 Update on Planning and Performance Cycle 15/16 i. An update on the 2015/16 Planning and Performance Cycle. 5/6

6 This session, Heads of Level 2 and 1 would meet with SMT to discuss their plans for the coming three years. i The Committee was supportive of the way the process this year had been extended to the wider leadership team, and extremely supportive of the use of the Raising Performance Matrix as the key tool in the process. The PPC would be the primary mechanism for the prioritisation of activities and resource to support these. v. RIOG would be discussing potential research themes at its meeting in March. The outcomes of these discussions would be fed into the PPC. 6. Date of Next Meeting i. The next meeting was scheduled to take place on 8 th June /6