Industrial Strategy Green Paper – Tara Dean, Pro-Vice Chancellor Research & Enterprise

The Government issued the ‘Building our Industrial Strategy’ Green Paper towards the end of January, inviting views on its plans to support growth and improve living standards across the UK.  It has taken me few weeks to read it carefully and I can share that the strategy is a clear signal that the approach to economic growth is changing, and the catalyst is Brexit.

The Strategy recognises that the UK must become more innovative, build on its world-leading science base and develop its skills base; that it must create the right institutions to bring sectors and places together; and that it must cultivate its world-leading sectors. Universities can play a vital role in achieving these ambitions. The priorities are to increase ‘productivity’, close the gap with global competitor nations and to rebalance the economy of the UK in regional terms.

Active engagement in the many aspects of developing and delivering the Industrial Strategy will be crucial for universities’ self-interest. UK universities support more than 750,000 jobs (2.7% of all UK employment) and generate an economic output in excess of £73 billion a year. The UK’s Higher Education sector is the envy of the world, and the Government could make use of the vast knowledge our universities cultivate and communicate.  The UK is home to exceptional universities and people travel from so many different countries to experience our Higher Education system. The links universities build internationally – whether through partnerships, overseas campuses or recruiting international students – can have a positive impact in terms of soft-power. UK universities can play an increasingly important role in fostering international relationships and I hope that the strategic importance of the Higher Education sector will be reflected in the Industrial Strategy as the Government moves forward with its proposals.

University Alliance has published a paper setting out how Alliance universities can help government deliver its ambitions for growth.  The document, Universities: delivery partners for industrial strategy, sets out how, by working closely with business, Alliance universities produce high-level skills and support high-value innovation.  Universities are not only deeply rooted in their cities and surrounding regions but have networks that span different economic and administrative boundaries within the UK.

The Industrial Strategy is built on what the Government is calling 10 ‘pillars’:

• Investing in science, research and innovation
• Developing skills
• Upgrading infrastructure
• Supporting businesses to start and grow
• Improving procurement
• Encouraging trade and inward investment
• Delivering affordable energy and clean growth
• Cultivating world-leading sectors
• Driving growth across the whole country
• Creating the right institutions to bring together sectors and places

The Green Paper is strong on research and innovation.  The new Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (£2bn/yr in steady state by 2020-21) will be delivered primarily through the newly established UKRI.  Exactly how UKRI will do this is still not clear.  When it comes to skills, the document is quite vague.  Degree apprenticeships and postgraduate taught provision are not mentioned at all, which does make one wonder if the role of universities in the skills supply line has been appreciated at all.

Overall, this Green Paper is a stage in a process. The Government appears to be seeking a coherent and consistent strategy which will lead to the formulation of a set of policies that are designed to improve the performance of the economy. Time will tell whether this stronger embracing of industrial strategy is any more successful than its predecessors.

The Green Paper is open for consultation until 17 April 2017.

Research and Enterprise Strategic Plan 2017-2021 – Tara Dean, Pro-Vice Chancellor Research & Enterprise

I am delighted to confirm that the Research and Enterprise Strategic Plan (2017-2021) was approved by the University Management Board on Friday 20^thJanuary.   I can’t remember who it was who said that planning is bringing the future into the present so you can do something about it now.  This is exactly what we hope to do with our Strategic Plan.  Over the past couple of weeks, I have been visiting our different campuses to update staff on progress with the plan and its implementation.  When you look at other universities’ research and enterprise/innovation strategies, it is obvious how similar they are. They all talk about taking the institute from point A to point B, with B being a better place.  So, they all aspire to a better performance in REF, more external funding, more PgRs, more partnerships and impact.  What differentiates a good strategy from a bad one is how it will be implemented.  Sadly, many strategies fall down at this point and become a Strategy Put On The Shelf (SPOTS) and I have worked in institutions where this has been the case.  Following the fanfare launch of the strategy, everyone is waiting and nothing happens till the next strategy is put in place and the cycle continues.  I am determined that this will not be the case with our Strategic Plan. This is precisely why we have already started to think of the workstreams which will enable the delivery of the strategic goals and objectives.  I am acutely aware that not everyone will be behind all the changes that need to happen: right from the start, there will be the sceptics, the early adopters and those who will resist all the changes.  A plan is only as good as those who see it through, and I know there are many of us who want to see it through and more and more of you will get behind it as you see it being implemented.  As I went round the campus talking to staff, I felt that many of you are keen to engage with the Plan and help it realise its potential.

In few weeks’ time, I will approaching my 6 month anniversary here at Brighton. When I started, I went round every School talking about the need to develop a plan.  At times, I felt that many were ambivalent, questioning and not convinced at all.  Six months on, I can sense a big change and the emails I have received indicate that many of you are eager to get behind the principles and objectives stated in the Plan.  Many have already volunteered to take a more active role in implementing it.   As Professor Howie Rush reminded me at one of the campus meetings, to deliver on 7 goals and 35 objectives is quite an ambitious task, and I could not agree more.  But, we should not shy away from it.  All the objectives are needed and we need to be ambitious.  Intelligence without ambition is like a bird without wings.  Providing we are ambitious, plan well, work hard and keep a close eye on progress, we will make it.

My final word has to be to thank you all for your contributions during the consultations and for all your insightful contributions and comments at various fora and meetings and by emails. Whilst implementing the plan I will do my best to exercise a leadership that will serve the institution and all those within it who are passionate about research and enterprise.

This will be a new era for us and our work has just begun!

A very happy New Year to you all! I hope you have had a restful break and are looking forward to what the New Year has in store for us.  2016 was quite a year.  Who could have anticipated us leaving the EU, Trump coming to power in the US and the word ‘post-truth’ being selected as the Oxford Dictionary’s ‘Word of the Year’.  Thomas Carlyle, a Scottish philosopher, has a wonderful quote: “I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance”.  When I reflect on the events of June and November in 2016, I think this quote sums it up beautifully.  Here’s to a better 2017.

Now, in this first blog of 2017, I had planned to write about the upcoming campus visits where I will be discussing our new R&E Strategic Plan, but I have decided to write about these after the visits are complete. So, instead, I am going to write about an interesting article that an old friend brought to my attention.  The article is entitled ‘Toward the Discovery of Citation Cartels in Citation Networks’ and can be accessed in full at http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphy.2016.00049/full

In many disciplines, the number of citations that an article receives is considered a key measure of academic impact and quality. There are many reasons why an article might be cited.  Sometimes it is because it is the first/only study in the field, sometimes because it gives a good overview of the field or that it is of very high quality and describes the best available evidence in the field.  My most cited journal article (nearly 600 citations) was published in 2002 and is the first and, to date, the only article on a population-based study demonstrating the rise of allergy to peanuts.  I was lucky enough to follow two whole population birth cohorts, born 10 years apart, assessing the incidence of peanut allergy.  So, ever since the publication of this article, most studies in the area cite it.  I am very proud of it but it is, by no means, my best article.

The article I recommend you to read talks about the rising problem of citation cartels. These are defined as groups of authors that cite each other disproportionality more than they do other groups of authors that work in the same area, and which, therefore, artificially increases their citation rates.  The authors have come up with a model that can identify citation cartels by using semantic web tools. They state that their purpose is not to prevent this phenomenon, or to discredit authors that could be accidentally caught in the citation cartel, but to show that citation cartels exist, and that all responsible for publishing papers, Editors and Reviewers need to be aware of this.

I wonder if REF panels who consider citations will also take account of this!

This may be a misleading label for this blog but, if I had labeled it ‘miscellaneous’, you probably would not be reading it.

Last week, I attended the ‘Inside Government’ annual conference on Research and Development. Not surprisingly, most speakers talked about the next REF (now referred to as ‘REF2’ due to the uncertainty of its timing) and the Stern review.  Very shortly, HEFCE will launch a 14-week consultation on REF2.  This will include a number of events across the country and a 70-page consultation document with 40-odd questions.  One of the talks at the conference provided us with a flavour of what this might contain.  The issue of staff selection was the subject of much debate and dominated the Q&A session. The dominant position seems to be the removal of any institutional decisions on staff selected for submission.  David Sweeney stated very clearly that the default position will be to use the HESA staff categorization, unless the as a result of consultation the sector comes up with a better way which does not involve institutional judgment). He emphasised that universities need to ensure that staff have the right contracts and staff who are on R&T contracts should be doing both.  I could not agree more, and I believe that staff should undertake the activities contractually expected of them.  However, the assumption underpinning all this is that all research is the REF type of research.  This is simply wrong.  For many anchor universities like ours, research tackles many of the issues for our local, regional and national communities.  This is enormously valuable research, funded by external agencies, with good publication outputs leading to real change.  The REF is simply one element within the research ecosystem of a university.  For some universities, it may very well be the dominant element and, for others who see themselves as significant contributors to their local and regional landscape, REF is not a dominant element.  This does not mean that staff who do this type of research should not have research as part of their contract.

Time will tell what the final decision will be, but I do hope this point is shared by many and is taken on board.

Let me now move on to the topic of public engagement. Last week, I also attended the annual conference of National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE).  Public engagement as a key activity of universities has moved on quite significantly in the past decade and the fact that four VCs delivered plenaries at this 2-day event testifies to this.  The first day ended with an award ceremony celebrating excellence in public engagement.  There were a total of 180 submissions and a final short list of 18 awards under 6 categories.  I was immensely proud that our ‘Boingboing Youth Partnership’ was one of the finalists under the ‘Working in partnership’ category.  The poster looked great and it was nice to talk to our PhD student and a young volunteer who were there at the event.  At the end of the award ceremony, NCCPE announced the launch of the Sir Prof. David Watson award.  This international award, the first of its kind, will recognise achievements by community and university partners working together to build a healthier, just and sustainable community.  It has been set up in memory of Professor Watson, our former VC, who created the Brighton award-winning Community University Partnership Programme. A group of us were invited to attend a closed round table discussion on day two, mainly to discuss three key points.  How can public engagement move from good to great? What are the implications of Brexit on the role of experts in public life and does our approach to engaging with the public need to change as a result?  And finally, can we build the links between excellent engagement and excellent teaching?  There were some really good discussions on all these points and I look forward to the emerging report which will capture the views of this group.

Whilst there, I also learned of a new charter mark – the ‘Engage Watermark’. This is an award granted to institutions to recognize their commitment and strategic support for public engagement. The four award levels (bronze, silver, gold and platinum) relate to the different stages that an institution might reach in its support for public engagement.  The first such award was given to Queen Mary University of London who successfully achieved a gold award.  Over the next year at Brighton, we need to make sure that the excellent work we have done in public engagement is recognized and CUPP will be leading our application for this recognition.

Finally, our measure of excellence! This year, the AHRC sought central university co-ordination of applications for membership of the AHRC peer review college.  We have a number of staff who have served the maximum number of years possible and we currently have five existing members.  In this year’s call, we submitted 16 applications, all as members of the Academic College.  Additionally, we nominated three individuals as strategic reviewers, one as an international reviewer and one as a technical reviewer.   I was extremely pleased when we heard that all our nominations have been successful.  This is quite an achievement and a measure of the excellent quality of our academic staff.  With existing serving members, this means that, for AHRC alone, we have 21 academic staff who are members of their PRC.  Many congratulations to everyone and, in particular, to the successful ECRs!

As you know, the draft Strategic Plan for Research and Enterprise has been circulated for your comments and input. There is a neat Gov.UK publication on ‘Consultation Principles’ which states that consultations should have a purpose, be clear and concise and that they are only part of a process of engagement.

When the draft plan went out, I was not entirely sure what the responses would be, how many would engage with the process or whether the comments and points would be helpful and constructive? The consultation closed on the 4^th November and, as usual, there were a few late returns (which, in this case, were accepted on the basis of ‘better late than never’!).  Firstly, let me assure you that I have read everything at least three times and it was fantastic to have responses from every School!!  Some Schools sent me one collated response, two of our Research Centres had met to discuss the plan and submitted an extremely thorough response and the rest were from individuals.  In addition, I had some good comments from Academic Services and RESP, and a response from the A&H CRD, but, sadly, many of our central departments did not respond at all.

When it came to individual responses, the one that amused and intrigued me the most was from a Professor I have yet to meet who congratulated me and, by and large, liked the plan. They concluded their feedback with a poem called Hyenas, written in 2011, lamenting the historic lack of a UoB Research Policy and suggesting it would make a good forward to the new one!

So, what has been happening since the consultation closed?  A small group of us have been working hard to refine and update the Strategic Plan.  One thing that is worth mentioning is that we will create a detailed implementation plan which will cover the actions and activities needed to ensure we meet our objectives.  Naturally, some aspects of this will be easier than others and some we will address sooner rather than later, but the key thing is that we will need to work together to deliver the objectives.

Early in the New Year I will be visiting all campuses and, hopefully, can share what will be the final version with you.

Many thanks for your engagement and all your contributions.