Minimum research expectations
This document is written specifically with core Environment department staff on “teaching and research” contracts in mind. In our jobs we are expected to carry out research and teaching and it is useful to know what minimum level of effort is expected in these fields. By their nature these expectations are concerned with research. However that does not mean that contributions to teaching, administration, enterprise etc. are not valued equally nor does it mean that there aren’t minimum expectations in those areas. The emphasis here is on quality not quantity.
The minimum research expectations that are listed are equally applicable to Grade 7 (and higher) SEI-Y staff. Expectations are adjusted appropriately for colleagues returning to work after career breaks and working on contracts of less than 1.0 FTE.
These expectations are set within the context of current average data (2014-15) on grant submission (1.4 proposals submitted with a value of £195k per year per FTE, 4 year average), publications (2.8 papers published per year per FTE, 3 year average), and PhD students (hard to be precise but c. 2.5 PhD students per FTE, 3 year average), institutional expectations of an 85% return rate in REF2020 and the need to increase our REF ranking. They are also set with reference to the Environment department workload model (this applies to core Environment staff rather than SEIY) in which 100 hours per annum are allocated for the writing of research proposals and 350 hours for pursuing research in addition to any externally funded hours already awarded for research. Within the workload model additional hours (50 hours) are allocated per PhD student.
It is acknowledged that some colleagues will not be currently meeting these expectations and that there could be a variety of reasons for this, for example engagement in a particularly onerous administrative role or teaching project. Where appropriate, support via the Performance review mechanism will be provided to help all colleagues achieve these minimum expectations.
These research expectations cover four distinct areas of research effort: publications; external engagement; proposals; and PhD students. “Over-achievement” in one area should not be viewed as an alternative to aiming to meet these expectations in all four areas. However, the aim is not to produce a rigid, unforgiving system.
1. Publications
On the assumption that the next REF will operate as previous ones, colleagues who are submitted to the REF will require 4 high quality outputs. The University is aiming to submit 85% of environment staff and, looking at our REF2014 results, to improve our overall REF GPA we need to increase the ratings that the assessment panels give to our papers. In order to have 4 high quality outputs for submission all research active staff should:
Submit one, and preferably two, high quality journal papers per year equivalent to 3* quality as determined by REF.
Colleagues are encouraged to have draft papers internally reviewed / discussed at research groups and / or by colleagues, in order to maximise the quality of papers.
2. External engagement
External engagement can take many forms and be achieved in many different ways. Therefore we have avoided having quantitative targets for this important component of research.
Impact is an important part of the modern research agenda. Carrying out research that will “make a difference” is a worthy aim in itself but additionally there is also a requirement for specified numbers of impact case studies within REF submissions. Equally it is important to acknowledge that not all research will have “impact” in a REF defined sense, that some research is more amenable to achieving impact than others and that whether research is impactful or not does constitute a judgement on the worth of specific research topics. A departmental impact strategy is currently being developed. Therefore all staff should:
Endeavour to translate their research so that maximum impact can be achieved
In addition to research having impact, as research active academics we can seek to influence funding agencies, government bodies, industry etc. and play an active role in the wider academic community. Therefore all staff should:
Maintain an appropriate national and international profile through engaging with key funders, government bodies, industry etc. (e.g. engaging with / participating on RCUK committees, reviewing grant proposals, sitting on advisory panels), participating in the publication review process, attending and presenting at external conferences, presenting invited seminars and lectures, engaging in public outreach and with the media.
3. Proposals
In order to carry out research some level of funding is required and all staff are expected to obtain external sources of funding to support their research and achieve the above minimum expectations. In the current financial situation funding can be hard to achieve and RCUK funding pools are likely to shrink further. Therefore it is important for us all to think creatively about how to obtain the funding necessary to pursue our research interests, looking beyond RCUK. Given the current financial climate the aim is to produce “fundable” proposals acknowledging that in the current climate not all “fundable” proposals will be funded. Thus staff are expected:
To submit at least one significant proposal, i.e. sufficient to support the equivalent of a PDRA or acquire a substantial capital item, a year to an external funder, to be PI on at least one of these submissions every three years and, given a sustained level of activity at this level and with an appropriate amount of time, hold at least one significant research grant at any time either as PI or CoI.
4. PhD students
Good PhD students can make a significant and substantial contribution to research. Rather like research funding the funding landscape for PhD students has changed significantly over the last few years with the introduction of Doctoral training programmes and Centres for Doctoral Training. Opportunities exist outside these avenues via Industrial CASE schemes run by RCUK, overseas government funding, industrial funding etc. Rather like research funding it is incumbent on us all to think creatively and beyond RCUK for PhD funding. Staff should therefore
Aim to recruit one PhD student per year so that, on average, staff are the main supervisor to three PhD students at any one time.
Variation in research expectations across grades
A question arises as to whether Professors, Readers, Senior lecturers and Lecturers should all have the same minimum research expectations. Within the context of promotion clearly more senior grades are expected to have a stronger track record in research (though note ongoing institutional level discussions about a more teaching focussed promotion track to full professor). However, it is not necessarily reasonable to assume that more senior colleagues will write faster or have more ideas than more junior staff, they may simply be more experienced and thus more academically street wise. Similarly it may be that senior colleagues are more involved in supporting less experienced colleagues develop their research career. This is all hard to quantify. At present therefore the minimum research expectations will be left as being universally applicable whilst acknowledging that more is expected of individuals as they move through the grades. The performance review system is in place to set objectives tailored to the individual that can take into account contributions across research, teaching and administration.
Mark Hodson, Chair DRC, 25th June 2015