Views and Comments for the AHRB Postgraduate
Review
SCASS
(the Standing Conference of Arts and Social Sciences) was established in 1984,
and its primary membership is Faculties (or their equivalent) in HEIs.
This document has been prepared by the Steering Committee on behalf
of the membership. Given the relatively
short consultation period, the membership has had a limited opportunity to
discuss the issues.
In formulating our views
we have drawn extensively on the survey conducted by Professor Sandra Harris
(done for the UKCGE).
We gave evidence to
the ESRC review in 1999, and our evidence to you is compatible with what we
told them. We have made a submission
to Prof. Bennett’s BA Enquiry on Graduate issues, and this memorandum is compatible
with that too.
We hope that the AHRB
has access to all the evidence and opinions submitted to Prof. Bennett and
his panel: our evidence contained
a variety of bold proposals for innovation which would interest the AHRB too.
There is a shortage
of research on Arts and Humanities graduate students and their supervisors,
as great as the lack of such research on social scientists highlighted in
1987 by Winfield. The ESRC Teaching
and Learning Initiative is soon to embark on its third phase, focused on FE
and HE. The AHRB should press Prof.
Desforges and his Commissioning Panel to make research on graduate study in
the Arts and Humanities a named topic and to encourage good research proposals
on it.
1. We have, since our
foundation, been anxious that by about 2010 most of the current humanities
staff will have retired, and there are simply not enough younger academics
being prepared to replace them.
2. We have, since our
foundation, been anxious about the future of ‘endangered’ subjects/areas such
as Norman French, Portuguese, Catalan, Basque, Oriental Languages, Meso-American
Archaeology, Slavonic Studies, Anglo-Saxon, Welsh and Welsh History.
3. We have, since our
foundation, been opposed to the concentration of research support (for doctoral
students or staff) in the Golden Triangle or in Russell Group HEIs. While such concentration makes sense in science
and engineering, SCASS is convinced that research excellence in humanities
can be found in all regions of the UK and in many types of HE.
4. SCASS supports Research
Council status for the AHRB.
5. SCASS has argued
consistently that there are not enough studentships in the Arts & Humanities.
Too many clever graduates who wish to undertake higher degrees are
unable to find funding to do so. There is no shortage of good candidates, the
problem is a lack of grants to support them.
6. The level of the
stipend is not as much of an issue for Arts & Humanities students as for
those in the Sciences. SCASS would
prefer more studentships at the present stipend rather than a raised stipend
for fewer students.
SCASS response to
the 5 questions posed.
1. Mission and Objectives
(1) Given the inadequate
resources at the AHRB’s disposal, SCASS believes the present provision does
meet its mission. A substantially
larger number of students should be funded, to replace the academics aged
over 50 who will retire in the next 15 years.
(2) SCASS believes that
the AHRB does need to explore and keep under constant review whether it is
directing enough studentships to replace current scholars in the smallest
subjects: the endangered subjects. Close liaison with the subject associations
is needed.
(3) Assessing the AHRB’s
success needs to be done by collecting good data (i) on completion rates,
(ii) on destinations not just 6 months after graduation but 2 and 5 years
after completion of the higher degree, (iii) from heads of departments on
recruitment difficulties and (iv) from the subject associations on the turnover
of posts in the endangered subjects.
We recognise this is
not cheap: but believe that the HEFCE/SHEFC/HEFCW
and the CVCP should fund the data gathering as part of the manpower planning
for the HE sector.
2. A Balanced Portfolio
(1) SCASS does not request
any changes in the current portfolio.
(2) In general a free
market, in which the strongest candidates receive the awards is desirable. However if a subject is an endangered one,
then some attention over a 2 - 4 year period needs to be paid to providing
for its continuance. It is also important
that awards are made throughout the UK, not just in the Golden Triangle.
(3) In the social sciences
there are many programmes with a direct vocational outcome, especially the
MBA and those in Statistics and Operational Research. SCASS was therefore supportive of the ESRC
Training Board’s decision to cease funding students on such programmes.
However we are not confident
that the same situation pertains in Arts and Humanities: we are not aware of students taking vocational
courses funded by the AHRB and then getting lucrative employment.
We therefore think the current balance of funding between masters and
doctoral awards is about right. The one-year masters grants are vital for recruiting
doctoral students and providing specialist preparation for future research.
(4) Retaining the 1
+ 3 model is vital. The policy of
3 year awards going to those with experience is sensible given the overall
shortage of funds.
3. Methods of Allocation
In general we favour
the student-driven competition. We
recognise that quotas can be much cheaper for the AHRB to administer than
a competition, but overall believe they would result in the concentration
of awards in a few locations, disadvantaging students who wish to study in
a specific place. Quotas for institutions
seem undesirable. Quotas for endangered
subjects may be necessary, however. We
would welcome an AHRB pilot of a quota in one or two endangered subjects (Russian?
Czech? Serbian?) as an experiment.
4. Research Training
and Supervision
(1) The UKCGE report
by Prof. S. Harris addresses these matters in depth. We have nothing to add to her conclusions and recommendations.
(2) SCASS is generally
supportive of the post - Winfield model for training in the social sciences,
but does not believe that it is appropriate for Arts and Humanities.
(3) There are 4 steps
we would welcome
(a) A well publicised,
but restricted access web site where graduate students and supervisors posted
their topics, and invited regional collaboration(s).
(b) An electronic newsletter
to HEIs and to supervisors with examples of good practice (initially, perhaps,
social science examples?)
(c) earmarked funds
to reimburse travel for regional postgraduate postgraduate day conferences
in, for example, medieval British history.
(d) earmarked funds
that supervisors could apply for to provide specialist training (e.g. in a
specific software package) in their region.
5. Funding
(1) The main criterion
here has to be the production of scholars to replace the generation now over
50. If they are not replaced, no research
funds will be needed after 2010.
(2) Unlike biomedical
science, computing, law, accountancy or economics, there is no shortage of
candidates who wish to do research in the Arts & Humanities. The problem is the lack of stipends available
for them to do so.
Priority should be given
to increasing the number of awards, rather than raising the stipend.
3. Priority should be
given to increasing the number of awards, rather than instituting a ‘training
grant’ to HEIs.
N.B. AHRB should consider
paying the fees of part time research students, as ESRC does, to increase
the completion rates of such enthusiasts. AHRB should consider the desirability of professional doctorates
in some Arts and Humanities disciplines as an experiment: people in employment can do a professional
doctorate, and gain invaluable research experience. There is no reason why social science (D Clin Psych, EdD, D Soc
Wk, DBA) should dominate the professional doctorate market. Such professional doctorates may be a major
source of recruitment to HEI teaching in endangered disciplines after 2010.