international research collaboration in heis

InternationalResearchCollaboration in UKHigher EducationInstitutions

Colin McCaig, Sue Drew, Dave Marsden, Pegg Haughton, JohnMcBride, Denise McBride, BenWillis and Claire WolstenholmeCentre for Education and Inclusion Research and Centre forResearch and Evaluation, Sheffield Hallam University

DIUS Research Report 08 08

International Research Collaboration

in UK Higher Education Institutions

Colin McCaig, Sue Drew, Dave Marsden,Peggy Haughton, John McBride, Denise McBride,

Ben Willis and Claire Wolstenholme

Centre for Education and Inclusion Research and Centre forResearch and Evaluation, Sheffield Hallam University

DIUS Research Report 08 08

ISBN 978 1 84478 996 2© Sheffield Hallam University 2008

The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of theDepartment for Innovation, Universities and Skills.

1

Contents

Summary.....................................................................................................................3

1 Introduction...............................................................................................................5

2 Methods....................................................................................................................5

3 Responses................................................................................................................6

4 Main findings from the survey4.1 Strategic approach......................................................................................84.2 Operational structures and processes .....................................................164.3 Recording information about international research collaborations..........294.4 The uses and distribution of information...................................................37

5 Conclusions............................................................................................................40

Appendix I Introductory letter to HEIs........................................................................43

Appendix II Further Tables ........................................................................................44

Appendix III Questionnaire .......................................................................................88

3

Summary

The aim of this research was to reveal the extent to which HEIs monitor andcoordinate research collaboration between their institutions and those abroad, toidentify institutional roles or committees that monitor and coordinate suchinternational research links, and to identify the processes that monitor or record suchlinks.

This report is based on the findings of a survey of all 165 HE institutions in England,Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales in 2007. There were 127 useable responseswhich is 77% of all HEIs. There was little reportable variation between the responsesfrom individual countries (mostly because there were insufficient data from Scotland,Northern Ireland and Wales) however analysis by type and size of institutionrevealed variable patterns of activity.

There was a very high level of response from both pre- and post-92 HEIs of over80% although of the specialist institutions/colleges of higher education, only twothirds responded to the questionnaire. Large and medium HEIs (92% and 80%) werefar more likely to respond than small HEIs (59%).

HEIs have a considerable amount of international research collaboration (IRC)across all the identified forms of IRC, for example three-quarters of responding HEIshave international research collaborations funded by overseas public bodies or byUK public bodies. In addition, 86% of HEIs report unfunded research collaborationswith overseas academic colleagues, often involving postgraduate research wherestudents are located overseas and unfunded research where individual academicscollaborate with overseas colleagues. For many institutions, particularly the smallerHEIs and those specialist institutions, unfunded international research collaborationmay be encouraged to raise institutional prestige, improve individual academicreputations or to foster the development of funded IRC in the future.

For all HEI types, pre-92 and large HEIs are most likely to engage with IRC. Almostall HEIs have a research strategy, two thirds have an internationalisation strategy butless than half have a combined strategy. Internationalisation seems to be moreimportant to pre-92 institutions than other types of HEI and they are more likely tohave a strategy that combines internationalisation and research.

Most HEIs have a Pro-Vice Chancellor (PVC) responsible for research and over halfhave a PVC responsible for research and internationalisation, but only a quarterhave PVCs responsible for both areas. Pre-92s are more likely to have PVCsresponsible for internationalisation and Specialist Institutions/General Colleges(SI/GC) least likely to have PVCs responsible for research. Smaller and specialistinstitutions are more likely to centralise responsibility.

The larger the institution the more likely it is to have committees at school,department or faculty level dealing with research and to have separate committeesdealing with postgraduate research, and that this is general across HEI types. Mostsuch committees do tend to deal with IRC to some extent.

4

The recording of IRC information is more likely to occur at central level if it is relatedto income; otherwise, IRC information is likely to be held at more local levels. This isreflected in the recording of information on unfunded research collaborations, whichis recorded more carefully by specialised institutions than other kinds.

Less than half of responding HEIs hold information on where international researchcollaborations are taking place centrally; only a quarter collate and report on suchinformation and a fifth do not record the information at all. However, this informationis generally retained at school, department or faculty level where it is not heldcentrally.

5

1. Introduction

This report looks at the responses to a survey of institutions' processes formonitoring and co-ordinating international research collaboration (IRC). Theoverarching aim of the research is to reveal the extent to which HEIs monitor andcoordinate within their own institutions any research collaboration that takes placebetween the institution and those abroad. Our survey was designed to identify ininstitutions roles or committees that have oversight of and coordinate internationalresearch links, and processes that monitor or record such links. The data wereanalysed against two main variables relating to UK higher education institutions(HEIs), type of institution, and size of provision. HEIs are classified by 'type'according to whether they existed as universities prior to 1992, when polytechnicsbecame universities, whether they acquired university status post 1992, and whetherthey are specialist institutions or general colleges of higher education. On tablesthese variables appear as Pre-92, Post-92 or SI/GC. The following ranges of full-timeequivalent (FTE) student population are used to determine institutional size: small,up to 7999 students; medium, 8000 to 19,999 students; large, over 20,000 students.

Table i provides some evidence for a correlation between type and size of institutionswith TNE provision. There are no specialist institutions/colleges that are large in sizeand only four that are medium sized, although there are institutions of each type in allof the other size categories. The majority of post-92s are large

Table i - Type by size of institution

Type of HEI Large HEIs Medium sizedHEIs

Small HEIs Total

Post 92 29 12 5 46

Pre 92 25 25 8 58SI/GC 0 4 19 23Total 54 41 32 127

2. Methods

The methodology was a mix of qualitative and quantitative techniques. A qualitativemethodology was used to inform the research: this aimed to ensure that the researchreflected the concerns and interests of HEIs, rather than the assumptions of theresearch team. Via a pre-pilot, interviews were conducted that were designed toinform the research team about institutional practices, procedures and issues. Themain study then was quantitative in nature, using information gleaned from the pre-pilot to design the questionnaire.

Between January and March 2007 the research team constructed contact lists andalso developed and trialled the research instruments (e.g., e-mail requests;introductory letter).

6

During March and April 2007 a pre-pilot and piloting stage was conducted wherebyvisits were paid to institutions or telephone contact was made, with some interviewsconducted with the purpose of clarifying issues. One Welsh, one Northern Irish, oneScottish and five English HEIs were identified to participate in the pilot. Followingthis stage, there was a pilot stage to test the survey questionnaire and onlineversions.

The survey was issued in May 2007 and follow-up letters and emails were issued inthe normal manner along with follow-up telephone calls to maximise the responserate. In the event the research team received 132 responses from a total of 165 HEIsin England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (a response rate of 80%). Theresearch team actually managed to gain responses from all 165 institutions: the 33HEIs that we do not have any data for all declined to take part even when follow uprequests were made. For some this may be because they do not engage in IRC, forothers it may be that they do not wish to report on any IRC that they do engage in.

Paper questionnaires were scanned into Teleform software and analysed usingSPSS. Where data were provided by completion of the online questionnaire the datawere automatically entered into the SPSS database. Of the 132 responses 84 (64%)were on paper and 48 (36%) submitted electronically. Qualitative responses onpaper questionnaires were typed and manually coded into themes.

Of the 132 institutions submitting data, information relating to the country, type andsize of institution is missing from five responses. Therefore, throughout this reportwhile overall totals may add up to 132, totals by country, size and type will only total127 which is 77% of all HEIs in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

3. Responses

This section looks at the characteristics of responding institutions. Table 1 showsresponses by UK Country. Note that The Open University (OU) counts as one UK-wide institution for the purposes of this research

7

Table 1 - Responses by Country

AllInstitutions

N

AllInstitutions

%

Responserate N

Response rate%

England 129 78 99 77Scotland 19 12 15 79Wales 12 7 8 75NorthernIreland

4 2 4 100

OpenUniversity

1 1 1 100

Total 165 100 127 77

There was a very high level of response from both pre- and post-92 HEIs of over80% although of the specialist institutions/colleges of higher education, only twothirds (66%) responded to the questionnaire (Table 2).

Table 2 - Responses by type of institution

Responses Response % Total of Type % of Type

Valid Pre 58 44 69 84Post 46 35 56 82SI/GC 23 17 35 66Total 127 96

Missing 5 5 4

Total 132 132 100

Large and medium HEIs (92% and 80%) were more likely to respond than smallHEIs (59%, Table 3).

Table 3 - Responses by size of institution

Response Response % Total of Size % of Size

Valid Large 54 41 59 92

Medium 41 31 51 80

Small 32 24 54 59

Total 127 96

Missing 5 5 4

Total 132 132 100

8

4. Main findings from the survey

4.1 Strategic Approach

Pro Vice-Chancellor responsibilities

The research sought to establish ultimate responsibilities in this area and inparticular to see how far ultimate research responsibilities are separate from orlinked to responsibilities for internationalisation. Respondents were able to selectmultiple options so the categories were not mutually exclusive. A respondent might,therefore, indicate that they have a research PVC and that they also have a PVCresponsible for research and internationalisation. Note that in all the following tablesthe total response rate for each question may vary so the N and the percentage referto the number of respondents that answered yes to the question.

Overall 25% of responding HEIs have a Pro Vice-Chancellor (PVC) responsible forboth research and internationalisation; almost 90% have a PVC responsible forresearch and just over half have a PVC responsible for internationalisation (Table 4).The proportions are similar for each country (Appendix Table 1).

Table 4 - PVC responsibilities: overall

N % Total

PVC responsible for both research andinternationalisation

25 25 99

PVC responsible for research 101 88 115PVC responsible for internationalisation 60 55 109

Pre-92 HEIs, post-92 HEIs and SI/GCs are equally likely to have a PVC responsiblefor both research and internationalisation, however pre-92s are more likely to have aPVC responsible for internationalisation (63%) than the other HEI types and SI/GCsare least likely to have a PVC for research (70%, Table 5).

Table 5 - PVC responsibilities by type

Pre-92 Post-92 SI/GCN % N % N %


10 26 9 25 5 26

PVC responsible for research 46 92 36 90 14 70PVC responsible for internationalisation 31 63 18 50 10 50

Large HEIs are least likely to have a PVC with joint responsibility for research andinternationalisation and most likely to have separate PVC with responsibility forresearch and internationalisation (Table 6).

9

Table 6 - PVC responsibilities by size

Large Medium SmallN % N % N %


9 24 8 29 7 25

PVC responsible for research 43 94 33 92 20 71PVC responsible for internationalisation 27 61 18 55 14 50

Research Strategies

The research sought to establish whether institutions have overarching strategies forresearch, whether they also have strategies for internationalisation and if these twostrategies are combined. It then explored how far the strategies specificallyaddressed international research collaborations. It then went on to explore theaspects of international research collaboration that are covered in these strategies.

Almost all HEIs that responded reported that they have a research strategy (95%);two-thirds (68%) have an internationalisation strategy. Less than half (43%) have acombined research and internationalisation strategy and just over a quarter haveanother related strategy (27%, Table 7)

Table 7 - Research strategy overall

HEI strategies N % TotalStrategy that combines research andinternationalisation

39 43 91

Research strategy 102 95 107Internationalisation strategy 65 68 95Another strategy, please specify?* 6 27 18

*See note after table 9

Scottish HEIs are more likely to have a combined strategy and slightly more likely tohave a research strategy than English HEIs. There are insufficient data from Walesand Northern Ireland to draw any conclusions (Appendix Table 2).

Almost all institutions have a research strategy and three-quarters of pre- and post-92 institutions and two-thirds of SI/GCs have an internationalisation strategy. Almosttwo-thirds of pre-92 HEIs have a combined strategy (62%) compared to post-92s(28%) and SI/GCs (21%, Table 8.

Table 8 - Research strategy by type


Strategy that combines research andinternationalisation

26 62 9 28 3 21

Research strategy 39 95 39 98 22 96Internationalisation strategy 26 72 26 72 13 65Another strategy, please specify?* 3 38 2 18 0 -

* See the note after table 9

10

Half of large HEIs and just below half of medium sized HEIs (44%) have a combinedstrategy, while less than a third (30%) of small HEIs have a strategy combininginternationalisation and research (Table 9).

Table 9 - Research strategy by size


Strategy that combines research andinternationalisation 19 50 12 44 7 30Research strategy 38 93 33 100 29 97Internationalisation strategy? 25 69 22 73 18 69Another strategy, please specify?* 4 4 0 - 1 17

* Among respondents that have another strategy, two have overarching strategiesthat combined internationalisation and research (one large pre-92 embedded in theCorporate Plan and Divisional Strategies, one large post-92 as part of the AcademicStrategy). Two have them as part of the research strategy (one medium sized SI/GCand one large post-92); one medium sized pre-92 as part of the strategy of theInternational Office and two pre-92s (one small, one large) where internationalisationand research are part of School strategies.

Strategies for international research collaboration

Analysis of the nature of strategies found that a quarter (24%) of HEIs have aresearch and internationalisation strategy that specifically deal with internationalresearch collaborations (IRC) to a significant extent and a further 62% 'to someextent'. Just over a third reported that their internationalisation strategies deal withIRC to a significant extent and a further 51% 'to some extent'. Almost a third of HEIsreported that their research strategies do not deal with IRC at all (Table 10). There isvery little variation on these patterns by country, type or size of HEI (see AppendixTables 3, 4 and 5), however analysis of responses by HEI type revealed that veryfew SI/GCs or small HEIs responded to this set of questions.

Table 10 - Strategy for international research collaborations: overall

Yes, to asignificant

extent

Yes, tosomeextent

No Total

N % N % N % NDoes the research and internationalisationstrategy specifically deal with internationalresearch collaborations?

12 24 31 62 7 14 50

Does the internationalisation strategyspecifically deal with international researchcollaborations?

22 34 33 51 10 15 65

Does the research strategy specifically dealwith international research collaborations?

28 28 42 41 32 31 102

Does the other strategy specifically deal withinternational research collaborations

- - 3 75 1 25 4

11

The content of IRC strategies

HEIs are more likely to have strategies that specified partner type and particularcountries or regions than they are to specify subject area. Only a quarter (26%) ofIRC strategies specified subject areas while over half (55%) specified partnershiptype and 42% particular countries or regions. HEIs are also unlikely to have specificincome targets or targets of other kinds (Table 11).

Table 11 - Content of international research collaboration strategy: overall

Yes No N\A TotalN % N % N % N

Does your strategy specify particularcountries or regions?

38 41 46 50 9 10 93

Does your strategy refer to a focus onspecific types of partnership?

50 55 61 34 10 11 121

Does your strategy specify subject areas? 24 26 56 61 12 13 92Does your strategy have income targets? 13 14 69 75 10 11 92Does your strategy specify other targets?* 15 20 45 61 14 19 74

Among individual countries, Scottish respondents are more likely to specifypartnership type (73% as opposed to 55% for all and 53% for England), though thenumber of respondents is low (Appendix Table 6). However, there are largervariations by HEI type with pre-1992 HEIs far more likely than post-92 HEIs tospecify particular countries or regions and partnership types (Table 12).

Table 12 - Content of international research collaboration strategy: by HEI type


Does your strategy specify particular countriesor regions?

22 50 8 26 8 41

Does your strategy refer to a focus on specifictypes of partnership?

30 68 12 40 8 55

Does your strategy specify subject areas? 9 21 5 17 10 26Does your strategy have income targets? 9 21 3 10 - 14Does your strategy specify other targets?* 7 23 5 18 3 20Note: SI/GC numbers too small for useful comparison

Analysis by size shows that it is the smaller HEIs that are more likely to specifyparticular countries or regions, partnership types and subject areas. Note also thatlarger institutions are more likely to specify income and other targets in their IRCstrategies (Table 13).

Table 13 - Content of international research collaboration strategy: by size


Does your strategy specify particular countriesor regions?

15 37 11 44 12 48

Does your strategy refer to a focus on specifictypes of partnership?

21 53 15 60 14 58

Does your strategy specify subject areas? 6 15 6 23 12 48Does your strategy have income targets? 8 20 3 12 1 4Does your strategy specify other targets?* 9 27 3 16 3 15

Note: Tables 13 and 14 do not contain NAs which account for between 8 and 25% of responses.

12

*Other targets referred to include overall targets for defined research areas in onelarge post-92 institution, two that have targets related to student numbers (one largepost-92 and one large pre-92) two that related to income targets (one large post-92,one large pre-92) and three large pre-92 institutions that referred to publicationtargets.

Strategic ApproachSummary

To summarise, most HEIs have PVCs responsible for research and over half havePVCs responsible for research and internationalisation but only a quarter have PVCsresponsible for both areas. Pre-92s are more likely to have PVCs responsible forinternationalisation and SI/GCs least likely to have PVCs responsible for research:

Almost all HEIs have a research strategy, two thirds have aninternationalisation strategy and less than half have a combined strategy. Pre-92 HEIs are more likely to have a combined strategy. Combined strategies arealso more likely in large institutions.

Whilst HEIs, therefore, have senior managers responsible for research and forinternationalisation and strategies in these areas (separate or combined) theyare much less likely to specifically address international research collaborationat the highest strategic level in the institution. Generally only a quarter to athird of HEIs specifically address IRC in their strategies and just over half doto some extent.

Where strategies referred to IRC they rarely specified targets and are morelikely to refer to partners than to countries and least likely to refer to specificsubject areas.

4.2 Operational structures and processes

Central committees

We also explored committee structures that concern IRC in relation to strategiclevels of co-ordination and monitoring of IRC in institutions. The vast majority ofresponding HEIs (96%) have a central committee responsible for research, and asignificant minority (39%) have a central committee responsible forinternationalisation. However, only 16% have a central committee responsible forboth research and internationalisation (Table 14). There are no significant variationsby country, size or HEI type (Appendix Tables 7, 8 and 9).

13

Table 14 - Central committees: overall

N % Total

Central committee responsible for research andinternationalisation

14 16 89

Central committee responsible for research 116 96 121Central committee responsible for internationalisation 40 39 102Another central committee dealing with research/internationalisation, please specify?*

5 28 18

*Among respondents that cited another committee dealing with research/internationalisation, one small SI/GC referred to the directorate of school, one largepost-92 cited a faculty-based committee for research and once small pre-92 have anOverseas Collaborating Institutions Committee for this purpose.

A quarter (25%) of responding HEIs reported that the research committee deals withIRC to a significant extent and another 49% to some extent. Very small numbersresponded to the question 'Does the research and internationalisation committeespecifically deal with international research collaborations?' making any variationstoo insignificant to report (N=14).There is little variation by country, size or HEI typefor any of these questions.

Table 15 - Nature of the central committee dealing with international research:overall


extent

Yes, tosomeextent

No Total

N % N % N % NDoes the research and internationalisationcommittee specifically deal with internationalresearch collaborations?

2 14 9 64 3 21 14

Does the research committee specificallydeal with international researchcollaborations?

26 25 50 49 27 26 103

Does the internationalisation committeespecifically deal with international researchcollaborations?

12 33 19 53 5 14 36

Does the other committee specifically dealwith international research collaborations?

1 20 3 60 1 20 5

The highest level committee dealing with research in HEIs is also responsible for theresearch strategy in 95% of cases, for externally funded research in 82% of casesand for the research assessment exercise (RAE) in 90% of cases. However,responsibility for research students/studentships and unfunded research (i.e.research conducted by academics as part of their research interests) is dispersed toother levels of the HEI in around 40% of institutions (Table 16). There is very littlevariation by country, though analysis by size shows that medium sized HEIs areslightly more likely to have all research responsibility at the highest level (100% forresearch strategy, 92% for externally funded research and 98% for the RAE).Analysis by type shows that SI/GCs are more likely to have responsibilitiesdispersed, but also more likely to have the highest committee responsible forresearch students/studentships (67%) and unfunded research (71%, AppendixTables 10, 11 and 12).

14

Table 16 - Level of research decision making: overall


Is the highest level committee dealing withresearch in the institution responsible for theresearch strategy?

22 95 4 3 2 2 28

Is the highest level committee dealing withresearch in the institution responsible forexternally funded research?

103 82 20 16 2 2 125

Is the highest level committee dealing withresearch in the institution responsible for theRAE?

114 90 10 8 3 2 127

Is the highest level committee dealing withresearch in the institution responsible forresearch students/studentships?

74 60 46 37 3 2 123

Is the highest level committee dealing withresearch in the institution responsible forunfunded research?

62 52 52 43 6 5 120

Committee StructuresSummary

Whist HEIs have committee structures that relate to research andinternationalisation, the majority do not deal with IRC specifically. Committeestructures do not always encompass all types of research, with research studentsand studentships and unfunded research often being devolved to other, more local,levels in institutions.

Corporate plans

Corporate plans that refer specifically to IRC 'to a significant extent' are in theminority at 14%, while another 57% of plans refer to IRC 'to some extent'. However,29% of HEIs reported that their corporate plans do not refer to IRC. SI/GCs (with alower response rate) are the most likely to report 'significant extent' (23%) but alsothe most likely to report no specific references to IRC (50%) in their corporate plans.Among the size bands, smaller HEIs repeated the pattern of SI/GCs by reporting thehighest incidence of significant extent (19%) and the highest incidence of non-reference to IRC (45%, Appendix Tables 13-16).

School/faculty/department business plans that refer specifically to IRC are reportedin similar proportions to corporate plans, with the smallest and most specialistinstitutions recording the least references to IRC in plans.

Corporate plansSummary

It seems to be the norm for either corporate or school/faculty/department plans torefer to IRC.

15

Monitoring of strategies

Over half of HEIs (55%) reported that they monitored the progress of institutionalstrategies and plans relating to IRC at institutional level. This practice is morecommon among pre-92 HEIs (66%) than among post-92s (41%). Around 60% ofSI/GCs reporting that they monitored strategies, however this category is the mostlikely to report that this is not applicable (13%, Appendix Tables 17-19). There is nosignificant variation by institution size or country.

Almost all HEIs (93%) that carry out such monitoring report regularly to PVC or highlevel committee level. When asked if the monitoring is 'broad brush', 'fairly specific' or'detailed' there is little variation by country, with around 45% of respondents saying'broad-brush' and 'fairly specific' and 10% 'detailed', however monitoring is morelikely to be 'broad brush' in post-92 and medium sized institutions and more likely tobe 'fairly specific' in smaller and specialist institutions (SI/GCs, Appendix Tables 17-19).

Monitoring is most likely to refer to funded international research, which occurred in89% of reported cases. International research studentships and unfundedinternational research are less likely to be mentioned (Table 17). Once again it is thesmaller HEIs and those in the SI/GC category that exhibit the most centralisedresearch monitoring; 69% of SI/GCs reported on unfunded international researchcompared to 46% of pre-92s and 63% of small HEIs reported on unfundedinternational research compared to 39% of pre-92s.

Table 17 - Content of monitoring reports: overall


Does the monitoring refer to fundedinternational research?

63 89 4 6 4 6 71

Does the monitoring refer to internationalresearch studentships?

46 67 14 20 9 13 69

Does the monitoring refer to unfundedinternational research?

34 51 27 40 6 9 67

Monitoring strategiesSummary

Where there are strategies and plans relating to IRC just over half of them aremonitored. Monitoring and reporting is most likely in small and specialist institutionswhere gathering of data may be less complex. Monitoring is most likely to refer to themonitoring of funded research, rather than unfunded research or researchstudentships.

16

Overall summary- institutional strategic approaches

Whist institutions do have high level individuals responsible for research andinternationalisation and do have strategies for both and do have institutional researchcommittee structures, it is not the norm for those to refer to IRC, and where the dorefer to IRC it tends not to be to a great degree of specificity.

Types and extent of international research collaboration

The research sought to identify the structures and processes used by HEIs to co-ordinate and monitor IRC. We will begin by identifying the types of IRC HEIs engagein.

Three-quarters or more of responding HEIs have international researchcollaborations funded by overseas public bodies (78%), by other internationalorganisations (75%) or by UK public bodies (83%). In addition, 86% of HEIs reportunfunded research collaborations with overseas academic colleagues. Over two-thirds of HEIs (68%) report postgraduate research where students are locatedoverseas, while 62% have unfunded research where academics collaborate withoverseas colleagues (Table 18). This indicates a considerable amount of IRC acrossHEIs.

Table 18 - Types of international research collaboration: overall

N % Total

International research collaborations funded by overseaspublic bodies

103 78 131

International research collaborations funded by otherinternational organisations

99 75 132

International research collaborations funded by UK publicbodies

109 83 132

Postgraduate research where students are locatedoverseas

90 68 132

Postgraduate research where students' supervision isshared with an overseas partner

82 62 132

Unfunded research where academics collaborate withoverseas colleagues

113 86 132

There is significant variation by HEI type, with pre-92 institutions far more likely to bein receipt of funding from overseas public bodies (93%), other internationalorganisations (95%) and UK public bodies (93%) than post-92s (76%, 65% and 83%)and, to an even greater extent, SI/GCs, less than half of which receive funding fromany international public bodies. SI/GCs are also less likely to have postgraduateresearch where students are located abroad (30% compared to 72% for pre-92s)and where postgraduates' supervision is shared with overseas partners (26%). Post-92 universities report the highest proportion of postgraduate research wherestudents are located overseas (85%) and of unfunded research where academicscollaborate with overseas colleagues (91%, Table 19).

17

Table 19 - Types of international research collaboration: by type


International research collaborations funded byoverseas public bodies

54 93 35 76 11 48

International research collaborations funded byother international organisations

55 95 30 65 10 44

International research collaborations funded byUK public bodies

54 93 38 83 13 57

Postgraduate research where students arelocated overseas

42 72 39 85 7 30

Postgraduate research where students'supervision is shared with an overseas partner

40 69 32 69 6 26

Unfunded research where academicscollaborate with overseas colleagues

49 85 42 91 19 83

There is a similar profile by size of institution with over 90% of larger HEIs in receiptof funding from overseas public bodies and international research collaborationsfunded by UK public bodies. Only half of small HEIs (53%) are in receipt of fundingfrom overseas public bodies and are they also less likely to have postgraduateresearch where students are located overseas (38% compared to 68% for all HEIs)and where postgraduates supervision is shared with overseas partners (28%, Table20). There was insufficient data for analysis by country (Appendix Table 20).

Table 20 - The funding of international research: by size


International research collaborations funded byoverseas public bodies

51 94 32 78 17 53

International research collaborations funded byother international organisations

47 87 28 68 20 63

International research collaborations funded byUK public bodies

49 91 33 81 23 72

Postgraduate research where students arelocated overseas

45 83 31 76 12 38

Postgraduate research where students'supervision is shared with an overseas partner

40 74 29 71 9 28

Unfunded research where academicscollaborate with overseas colleagues

49 91 34 83 27 84

Types and extent of international research collaborationSummary

HEIs have a considerable amount of IRC across all the identified forms of IRC. Forall HEI types, pre-92 and large HEIs are most likely to engage with IRC. Thereseems to be a discrepancy between the level of activity engaged in by HEIs and thelevel of strategic overview.

Research responsibility at department/school/faculty level

We explored firstly the responsibilities at department/school/faculty level beforeexploring whether these responsibilities included IRC.

18

A large majority (89%) of responding HEIs report that their department/faculty has alead person at head of research level and 89% have a person leading onpostgraduate research students. Two-thirds (66%) have a person leading onexternally funded research, though less than half (47%) have a lead person onunfunded research. In over half of responding institutions these roles are combined(Table 21). There are no significant variations by country (Appendix Table 21).Among HEI types pre-92 institutions are the least likely to report that the lead personresponsibilities are combined (37% against 54% for all HEIs and 78% for SI/GCs).Responsibilities are also more likely to be combined within medium sized HEIs (63%against 54% for all HEIs, Appendix Tables 22 and 23).

Table 21 - Responsibility of lead person: overall


Does your department/faculty have a head ofresearch institute/division/centre?

106 89 8 7 5 4 119

Does your department/faculty have a personleading on externally funded research?

69 66 31 30 5 5 105

Does your department/faculty have a personleading on un-funded research?

46 47 45 46 8 8 99

Does your department/faculty have a personleading on postgraduate research students?

100 89 9 8 4 4 113

Are these combined, and if so how?* 35 54 20 31 10 15 65

* The titles of lead persons varied considerably: of 22 responses that named the roleresponsible six were VC or Deputy VC level and ten at senior management level.Eight responses were from pre-92 HEIs, 12 from post-92 and 2 from SI/GCs; 16institutions were large, four medium sized and two small. Among the large post-92institutions responsibility lay with PVCs for Research in two cases, SeniorManagement for Research in two cases and Head of Graduate School in two casesand Director of Finance in one case. Large pre-92s exhibited a similar pattern.Among medium sized institutions responsibility was at VC and Director of Researchlevel (2 instances of each).

The lead person and international research

The lead person deals with IRC to a 'significant extent' in 26% of responding HEIsand 'to some extent' in another 55% and took a significant role in internationalresearch collaborations, unfunded research and postgraduate students inapproximately a third of HEIs. Combining 'significant' and 'to some extent' the leadperson has responsibility for all these issues in approximately 80% of HEIs (Table22). When the figures are broken down by HEI type the only significant variationoccurs in the SI/GC category where the lead person is more likely to haveresponsibility to 'a significant extent' (for example 46% for international researchcollaborations) (Appendix Tables 24, 25 and 26).

19

Table 22 - IRC responsibilities of the lead person: overall


extent

Yes, tosomeextent

No TotalDo roles involve IRC?

N % N % N % NHead of research institute/division/centre 26 26 55 55 20 20 101Lead person on externally funded research 22 34 36 55 7 11 65Lead person on un-funded research 14 30 26 57 6 13 46Lead person on postgraduate researchstudents

32 36 36 40 21 24 89

Combined role person 10 36 16 57 2 7 28

Lead personSummary

A quarter of lead persons for all types of research are likely to have significantresponsibility for IRC and over half the responsibility to some extent. This is thesame across all the different roles.

Department / school / faculty level committees

More than three-quarters of HEIs (80%) reported that there they have researchcommittees in each department/school/faculty, while more than half (57%) haveseparate committees at this level to deal with postgraduate degrees (Table 23).Research committees in each department/school/faculty are more prevalent inScotland than amongst all HEIs: 93% of institutions have research committees at thelocal level and 64% have separate committees to deal with postgraduate degrees(Appendix Table 27).

Table 23 - Department / school / faculty level committees: overall


Research committee in eachdepartment/school/faculty

101 80 21 17 5 4 127

Separate committee in eachdepartment/school/faculty

65 57 47 41 3 3 115

Post-92 (91%) and pre-92 HEIs (82%) are both far more likely than SI/GCs (50%) tohave research committees at department/school/faculty level and to have separatecommittees to deal with postgraduate degrees in each school; only 11% of SI/GCshave this facility (Table 24).

Table 24 - Department / school / faculty level committees: by type



46 82 40 91 11 80


34 67 23 59 5 57

20

Large (90%) and medium-sized HEIs (90%) are far more likely to have researchcommittees at school level than small HEIs, among whom only 48% have this facility.Only 25% of small HEIs have a separate committee to deal with postgraduatedegrees in each school, compared to half (50%) in medium and 79% in largeinstitutions (Table 25).

Table 25 - Department/school/faculty level committees: by size



47 90 35 90 15 48


37 79 18 50 7 25

The responsibilities of department/school/faculty level committees

Responsibility for IRC is equally distributed between research committees andseparate IRC committees in responding HEIs. Specific research committees anddeal with IRC to 'a significant extent' in 16% of cases, with another 68% 'to someextent'. For separate IRC committees 20% deal with IRC to 'a significant extent' and61% to some extent' (Table 26).

Table 26 - IRC responsibility at department/school/faculty level: overall


extent

Yes, tosomeextent

No TotalDo roles involve IRC?

N % N % N % NDoes the research committee specificallydeal with international researchcollaborations?

15 16 64 68 15 16 94

Does the separate committee specifically dealwith international research collaborations?

12 20 37 61 12 20 61

Numbers responding to the survey were too small for any variation by country to bereported (Appendix Table 28). However, analysis by type of HEI revealed that pre-92HEIs are far more likely to report that both committees have a significant input onIRC (23% for research and 25% separate) than post-92 HEIs (8% and 14%) orSI/GCs (11% for research, 0 for the separate committee). Among post-92s over aquarter reported neither committee dealing with IRC while a third of SI/GCs reportedthat their research committees do not deal with IRC (Appendix Table 29).

Medium sized HEIs are more likely to report involvement to a significant extent thanlarge HEIs or SI/GCs. Among medium HEIs 32% reported that a separate committeedeal with IRC as opposed to just 17% of their research committees (Appendix Table30).

21

CommitteesSummary

Our findings suggest that the larger the institution the more likely it is to havecommittees at school/department/faculty level dealing with research and to haveseparate committees dealing with postgraduate research, and that this is generalacross HEI types. Most such committees do tend to deal with IRC to some extent.

A central office for externally funded projects

The research sought to establish if HEIs have central units that co-ordinate andmonitor IRC. Overall, 85% of responding HEIs have a central office to deal withexternally funded research projects. That figure rose to 93% of the 15 Scottishrespondents and 100% of the eight Welsh respondents. SI/GCs reported the lowestproportion of HEIs by type (68%) that have a central office and smaller HEIs thelowest category by size of institution (74%) with over 90% of both large and mediumsized institutions (91% and 93% respectively, Appendix Tables 31-34).

Responsibility for the central office

Responsibility for the central office most commonly belonged to 'a senior managerfor research' (in 47% of cases) followed by 'a senior manager for business orenterprise' in 20% and 'a senior manager in Registry or equivalent' in 12% of cases.A fifth (20%) of respondents cited 'other please specify' (Table 27).

Table 27 - Responsibility for the central office: overall

Under whose responsibility does it sit?A senior manager for research N %A senior manager in 'Registry' orequivalent

52 47

A senior manager for businessor enterprise

13 12

A senior manager in corporateplanning

22 20

Other, please specify* 2 2A senior manager for research 22 20Total 111 100

Numbers are too small for analysis by country (Appendix Table 35), however thereare variations by HEI type and size. Among pre-92 HEIs, senior managers forresearch are responsible for the central office in 50% of cases with 14% for senormanagers in Registry and 18% in business and enterprise. Among post-92 HEIsresponsibility is more evenly divided between senior managers for research (36%),senior managers for business or enterprise (23%) and Registry (10%) and 31%stating responsibility is under 'other'. Among the 14 SI/GCs that answered to thisquestion 64% located the central office under the leadership of the senior managerfor research (Table 28).

22

Table 28 - Responsibility for the central office: by type

Pre / Post / SI

Pre Post SI/GC

N % N % N %A senior managerfor research 28 50 14 36 9 64

A senior manager in'Registry' orequivalent

8 14 4 10 - -

A senior managerfor business orenterprise

10 18 9 23 3 21

A senior manager incorporate planning 2 4 - - - -

Other, pleasespecify*

8 14 12 31 2 14

Total 56 100 39 100 14 100

Analysis by size reveals that smaller institutions (albeit with a response of only 22)reported the highest incidence of locating the central office under the responsibility ofa senior manager for research (64%) compared to 54% for medium and 34% forlarge HEIs. In each category 'a senior manger for business or enterprise' is secondmost common response, although almost a third of large HEIs reported thatresponsibility lay in an 'other' category (Table 29).

Table 29 - Responsibility for the central office: by size

Size of institution

Large Medium Small



6 12 4 11 2 9


10 20 9 24 3 14

A senior manager incorporate planning 1 2 - - 1 5


16 32 4 11 2 9

Total 50 100 37 100 22 100

23

Central postgraduate office

Overall, 81% of responding HEIs have a central postgraduate office; 89% of post-92s, 83% of pre-92s and only 68% of SI/GCs have a central postgraduate office.There is no significant variation by size and insufficient data for analysis by country(Appendix Tables 36-39).

Responsibility for the postgraduate office

Registry or equivalent is the most common location for responsibility for thepostgraduate office, cited in 46% of responses, followed by 'a senior manager forresearch' (32%, Table 30). There were insufficient data for analysis by country(Appendix Table 40).

Table 30 - Responsibility for the postgraduate office: overall

N %A senior manager for research 33 32

A senior manager in 'Registry' orequivalent

47 46

A senior manager for business orenterprise

3 3

Other, please specify* 20 19

Total 103 100

Among pre-92 institutions responsibility is most commonly located within Registry orequivalent (61%) while among post-92s senior managers for research are more likelyto hold responsibility than Registry (44% to 36%, Table 31).

Table 31 - Responsibility for the postgraduate office: by type

Pre / Post / SI

Pre Post SI/GC



28 61 14 36 4 27


2 4 1 3 - -


10 22 7 18 2 13

Total 46 100 39 100 15 100

24

Analysed by size, large and medium institutions most commonly locatedresponsibility in Registry, followed by 'a senior manager for research' (as do thesmaller number of small HEI respondents). In both large and medium HEIs asignificant minority (24% and 18% respectively) located responsibility in the 'other,please specify' category (Table 32).

Table 32 - Responsibility for the postgraduate office: by size

Size of institution

Large Medium Small



22 49 14 41 10 48


1 2 2 6


11 24 6 18 2 10

Total 45 100 34 100 21 100

*Combinations of people dealing with international research collaborations included threeinstitutions where the head of research/division/centre is also the lead person on externallyfunded research (one large pre-92, one large post-92 and one medium sized pre-92); sixinstitutions where the head of research/division/centre is also the lead person on externallyfunded research and on unfunded research (three medium sized pre-92s, one large post-92,one medium pre-92 and one small SI/GC); six institutions where the head of research /division / centre is also the lead person on externally funded research, unfunded researchand postgraduates (two large post-92s, two medium-sized SI/GCs, one small SI/GC andonce medium-sized post-92s). In addition the lead person on externally funded research andon unfunded research are combined in two small SI/GCs and the head of research / division/ centre also lead on externally funded research and postgraduates in two large post-92s andone medium sized pre-92.

Four institutions reported that this pattern varied between departments, schools orfaculties across the institution (three large pre-92s and once large post-92); two post-92s (one large, one small) reported that Associate Deans are responsible at facultylevel; two pre-92s (one large, one medium) reported that responsibility at faculty levelrested with Research Committees; and three institutions have a centrally nominatedperson responsible (two large post-92s, one large pre-92 and one small SI/GC).

Responsibility for the postgraduate officeSummary

Responsibility for postgraduate offices most often falls within the Registry (orequivalent) or research office, though in larger institutions (pre- and post-92) there ismore likelihood that responsibility will be spread among other areas, often atresearch centre or faculty level. Smaller and specialist institutions are more likely tocentralise responsibility.

25

4.3 Recording information about international researchcollaborations

Three-quarters of responding HEIs (77%) hold information about overseas fundedincome centrally, while two-thirds (68%) record the information and over half (57%)collate and report it. Just over a third (35%) hold this information in the relevantdepartment, school or faculty (Table 33).

Table 33 - Recording of income from overseas funded projects: overall

N % Total

Record 90 68 132

Collated/reported on 75 57 132

Held centrally 101 77 132

Held indept/school/faculty

46 35 132

Not record at all 1 1 132

Does not apply 10 8 132

There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country, however there aresignificant variations by HEI type and size (Appendix Table 41). Pre-92s are morelikely to record (81%), hold centrally (83%) and collate and report on suchinformation than post-92s and SI/GCs. Post-92s are the most likely to hold theinformation in the department, school or faculty. Less than half of SI/GCs eitherrecord (44%) or collated/reported on income from overseas funded projects (Table34). A similar pattern emerges from analysis by size of institution, with large HEIsmore likely to record (85%), hold centrally (83%) and collate and report (66%) suchinformation than medium and small HEIs. Small institutions are more likely thanmedium ones to collate and report, though medium institutions are more likely to holdsuch information centrally and within the department, school or faculty (Table 34).

Table 34 - Recording of income from overseas funded projects: by type andsize

Type SizePre-92 Post-92 SI/GC Large Medium Small

N % N % N % N % N % N %Record 47 81 32 70 10 44 46 85 27 66 16 50Collated/reportedon

38 66 25 54 11 48 38 70 19 46 17 53

Held centrally 48 83 36 78 14 61 45 83 32 78 21 66Held indept/school/Faculty

19 33 14 61 7 30 24 44 14 34 3 19

Not record at all - - 1 2 - - 1 2 - - - -Does not apply 2 3 1 2 6 26 - - 2 5 7 22

26

The recording of income from UK funded research projects that haveinternational collaborations

Almost three-quarters of responding HEIs (72%) hold information on income from UKfunded research projects involving international collaborations centrally and twothirds (67%) record it, however only half collate and report on it. A third (34%) holdthis information within the department, school or faculty (Table 35).

Table 35 - Recording of income from UK funded research projects that haveinternational collaborations: overall

N % Total

Record 88 67 132




45 34 132



Pre-92 universities are the most likely to record income from UK funded researchprojects that have international collaborations (74%) while SI/GCs are the least likelyat only 52%. Analysis by size revealed a similar pattern with the large HEIs mostlikely to record the information (76%) and small HEIs the least likely at 56% and alsothe least likely to record such information at the school, department or faculty level(Table 36). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country except forEngland and Scotland, where there is no significant variation (Appendix Table 42).

Table 36 - Recording of income from UK funded research projects that haveinternational collaborations: by type and size



30 52 23 50 12 52 28 52 19 46 18 56


18 31 18 39 7 30 23 43 14 34 6 19

Not record at all 1 2 - - - - 1 2 - - - -Does not apply 2 3 2 3 5 22 1 2 2 5 6 19

27

Central Office for Externally Funded Research

Responding institutions were asked to name the Central Office that deals with theirexternally funded research projects. Responses came in seven categories: researchoffice/support; linked with enterprise or business development; referring to funding;linked to knowledge transfer; referring to development/innovation; referring tograduate study; and referring to strategy. Titles referring to enterprise or businessdevelopment are most common, 25 instances; and are most commonly found inlarge post-92 institutions (8) and medium sized and large pre-92s (7 and 5). Titlesreferring to research office or research support are the second most commonly foundand the most evenly spread among HEI categories. Six large post-92s referred tofunding in the title and seven medium sized pre-92s have development or innovationin their titles (Appendix Table 43).

Responsibility of the Central Office is at PVC or Deputy VC level in seven respondinginstitutions (3 large post-92s, 2 medium sized pre-92s, 1 large pre-92 and one smallSI/GC). Senior managers are responsible in ten institutions (4 large post-92s, 3 largepre-92s, 1 medium sized post-92, 1 small post-92 and 1 medium sized SI/GC). Onelarge post-92 has responsibility under the University Research Committee.

Recording the types of international partners in research collaborations(funded research)

Only just over half (53%) of all responding HEIs hold information on types ofinternational partners in research collaborations involving funded research, and lessthan half (47%) record it. Less than a third of such collaborations are collated andreported on and for 11% of institutions this information is not recorded at all.However, 39% held the information at school, department or faculty level (Table 37).

Table 37 - Recording the types of international partners: overall

N % Total

Record 62 47 132




51 39 132



There is little variation between the overall findings and those by HEI type or size.However, SI/GCs and smaller HEIs are the least likely to record information on typesof international partners in research collaborations involving funded research. Theproportion of institutions not recording such information in any way is highest amongpre-92 universities (17%) and among medium sized HEIs (20%, Table 38). There areinsufficient data to analyse the findings by country except for England and Scotland,where there is no significant variation (Appendix Table 44).

28

Table 38 - Recording the types of international partners: by type and size



16 28 14 30 8 35 16 30 12 39 10 31


19 33 21 46 8 35 25 46 13 32 10 31

Not record at all 10 17 4 9 1 4 4 7 8 20 3 9Does not apply 2 3 3 7 4 17 3 6 2 5 4 13

The recording of where international funded research collaborations are takingplace

Less than half (47%) of responding HEIs hold information on where internationalresearch collaborations are taking place centrally, only 25% collate and report onsuch information and 14% do not record the information at all. However, 42% of HEIsrecord this information at school, department or faculty level (Table 39). There wereinsufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 45).

Table 39 - Recording where funded IRC takes place: overall

N % Total

Record 53 40 132




55 42 132



Pre-92 universities and medium sized institutions are the most likely to holdinformation on where international research collaborations are taking place centrally(both 49%) with SI/GCs and small HEIs the least likely at 26% and 25% respectively.Pre-92 universities and medium sized institutions are also the most likely to recordthat they do not record such information at all (Table 40). There are insufficient datato analyse the findings by country.

Table 40 - Recording where funded IRC takes place: by type and size



14 24 11 24 8 35 15 28 9 22 9 28


21 36 21 46 10 44 24 44 17 42 11 34


29

The recording of the subject area of international funded researchcollaborations

Less than half (47%) of responding HEIs hold information about the subject area ofinternational research collaborations centrally, and where it is recorded (42%) it isheld at school, department or faculty level. Less than a quarter (24%) of institutionscollate and report on this information and 11% do not record it in any way (Table 41).

Table 41 - Recording of the subject of international funded researchcollaborations: overall

N % Total

Record 56 42 132




57 43 132



SI/GCs (39%) and small HEIs (38%) are the most likely to collate and report on thesubject areas of international research collaborations. Over half of pre-92 universitiesrecorded this information and held it centrally (52% for both), a profile shared bymedium sized HEIs. Post-92 universities (50%) and large HEIs (48%) are those mostlikely to hold such information at school, department or faculty level. Smallinstitutions are the most likely not to record this information at all (Table 42). Thereare insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 46).

Table 42 - Recording of the subject of international research collaborations bytype and size



14 24 8 17 9 39 10 19 9 22 12 38


22 38 23 50 9 39 26 48 17 42 11 34


Recording of income records for IRCSummary

There is a greater likelihood that income records of UK and overseas fundedresearch collaborations will be kept than the actual location, partner details or subjectareas of such linkages. On issues less directly related to income, such as therecording of details of partners, subject areas and countries where IRC occurs,information is more likely to be held in departments, faculties and schools. Smallinstitutions and SI/GCs appear more likely to collate and report on information bysubject area (perhaps because subject area information is more important to smaller

30

institutions with a narrower IRC profile) but they are also more likely not to recordsuch information at all.

Recording the number of postgraduate research students located overseas

Almost two-thirds of responding HEIs (61%) hold centrally the number ofpostgraduate research students located overseas, while another third (35%) holdthem at school, department or faculty level. Half (53%) of HEIs record suchinformation but less than one-third (30%) collate and report it (Table 43).

Table 43 - Recording the number of postgraduate research students locatedoverseas: overall

N % Total

Record 70 53 132




46 35 132



Post-92 universities (63%) and large HEIs (70%) are most likely to record thenumber of postgraduate research students located overseas and the most likely tocollate and report on such information (41% and 43% respectively). Post-92s arealso the most likely to hold such information centrally (76%, Table 44).There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 47).

Table 44 - Recording the number of postgraduate research students locatedoverseas: by type and size



16 28 19 41 4 17 23 43 8 20 8 25


24 41 17 37 4 17 26 48 13 32 6 19

Not record at all 4 7 1 2 - - - - 2 5 3 9Does not apply 4 7 2 4 12 52 2 4 4 10 12 38

Recording the type of international partners in research supervision

Less than half (45%) of responding HEIs hold such information centrally andapproximately a third record (37%) or hold it at school, department or faculty level(35%). Less than one fifth (17%) collate and report on the type of internationalpartners in research supervision (Table 45).

31

Table 45 - Recording the type of international partners in research supervision:overall

N % Total

Record 49 37 132




46 35 132



Post-92 (48%) and large HEIs (54%) are the most likely to record the type ofinternational partners in research supervision, and also the most likely tocollate/report on this information, though in only about a quarter of cases. Post-92(59%) and medium sized HEIs (59%) are most likely to hold this information centrallyand at school, department or faculty level. This is not the case in around half ofSI/GCs (57%) or small institutions (47%, Table 46). There is insufficient data toanalyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 48).

Table 46 - Recording the type of international partners in research supervision:by type and size



9 16 12 26 2 9 13 24 5 12 5 16


20 35 18 39 6 26 29 54 9 22 3 9

Not record at all 10 17 7 15 - - 5 9 9 22 3 9Does not apply 7 12 4 9 13 57 4 7 5 12 15 47

Recording the countries where students are located

Less than half of responding HEIs (49%) recorded where overseas researchstudents were located and just over half (55%) held this information centrally, withanother third holding this information at school, department or faculty level (36%).Around a quarter (27%) collated/reported on this information (Table 47).

Table 47 - Recording the countries where students are located: overall

N % TotalRecord 64 49 132Collated/reported on 36 27 132Held centrally 73 55 132Held indept/school/faculty

47 36 132

Not record at all 7 5 132Does not apply 20 15 132

32

Post-92 (59%) and large institutions (65%) are the most likely to record whereoverseas research supervised students are located. Over half of pre-92s (53%) and49% of medium sized HEIs also record this information, but only a fifth (22%) ofSI/GCs and 25% of small HEIs do so. Around two-thirds of post-92s and mediumsized HEIs hold such information centrally; post-92s (35%) and large HEIs (35%) arethe most likely to collate and report on such figures (Table 48). There are insufficientdata to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 49).

Table 48 - Recording the countries where students are located: by type andsize



16 28 16 35 3 13 19 35 9 22 7 22


24 41 17 37 5 22 27 50 12 29 7 22


Recording the location of overseas base studentsSummary

Surprisingly little data is held on where overseas research students are locatedgeographically, or with what kind of partner institutions. Medium sized and Post-92institutions are most likely to record the data and hold it centrally. For between a thirdand a half of small and specialised respondents these issues do not apply.

Recording the topics/subjects of the research students

Less than half of responding institutions record such information (46%) and hold it atschool, department or faculty level (40%); less than a quarter collate this informationto report on it (24%) but just over half (52%) hold it centrally (Table 49).

Table 49 - Recording the topics / subjects of the research students: overall

N % Total

Record 61 46 132




53 40 132



Post-92 (57%) and large institutions (57%) are most likely to record thetopics/subjects of their research students; less than a third of SI/GCs and smallinstitutions do so (30% and 31%). Three-quarters of post-92s (74%) and 61% of

33

medium sized HEIs held this information centrally, as do 52% of large HEIs. LargeHEIs are most likely to hold this at school, department or faculty level, though only25% of small institutions. In 12% of post-92s and almost 10% of medium and smallHEIs this is not recorded at all and for around a third of both SI/GCs and small HEIsit does not apply (Table 50). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings bycountry (Appendix Table 50).

Table 50 - Recording the topics / subjects of the research students: by typeand size



11 19 14 30 5 22 14 26 7 17 9 28


25 43 20 44 7 30 30 56 14 34 8 25


Recording the number of unfunded research projects involving internationalcollaborations by country

Less than a fifth of responding institutions record, held centrally or collated andreported on this information, and almost a third (30%) do not record the informationat all. Less than half (41%) held this information at school, department or faculty level(Table 51).

Table 51 - Recording the number of unfunded research projects involvinginternational collaborations by country: overall

N % Total

Record 25 19 132




54 41 132



SI/GCs are the only HEI category that record this to a significant extent, in 39% ofcases; they are also the most likely to collate/report (30%) and hold centrally (48%)the number of unfunded research projects involving international collaborations bycountry. In each of the categories between 37% and 45% of institutions held this atschool, department or faculty level. However, for around a third of pre-92, post-92,large and medium HEIs it is not recorded at all (Table 52).There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 51).

34

Table 52 - Recording the number of unfunded research projects involvinginternational collaborations by country: by type and size



2 3 9 20 9 39 9 17 8 20 7 22


25 43 18 39 10 44 24 44 17 42 12 38


Recording the types of international partners/colleagues for unfundedinternational research

There is a very similar pattern to the previous section (recording the number ofunfunded research projects involving international collaborations by country). Lessthan a fifth of responding institutions recorded, held centrally or collated and reportedon this information, and almost a third (29%) did not record the information at all.Less than half (42%) held this information at school, department or faculty level(Table 53). There are insufficient data to analyse the findings by country and verysimilar patters of behaviour by type and size of institution (Appendix Tables 52, 53and 54).

Table 53 - Recording the types of international partners/colleagues forunfunded international research: overall

N % Total

Record 23 17 132




55 42 132



Recording the countries where collaboration on unfunded research is takingplace

A fifth of institutions record (20%) and hold information on the countries wherecollaboration on unfunded research is taking place centrally (22%) and just belowhalf hold it at school, department or faculty level (45%). A quarter of institutions donot hold this information at all (Table 54).

35

Table 54 - Recording the countries where collaboration on unfunded researchis taking place: overall

N % Total

Record 26 20 132




59 45 132



SI/GCs are by far the most likely to record the countries where collaboration is takingplace (44%) and hold this centrally (44%). They are also the most likely tocollate/report on this information (35%) along with small HEIs (28%). Almost a thirdof pre-92, post-92 and medium sized institutions and a quarter of large institutions donot hold this information at all (Table 55). There are insufficient data to analyse thefindings by country (Appendix Table 55).

Table 55 - Recording the countries where collaboration on unfunded researchis taking place: by type and size


N % N % N % N % N % N %Record 7 12.1 8 17.4 10 43.5 9 16.7 9 22.0 7 21.9Collated/reportedon

3 5.2 8 17.4 8 34.8 6 11.1 4 9.8 9 28.1

Held centrally 8 13.8 10 21.7 10 43.5 9 16.7 10 24.4 9 28.1Held indept/school/Faculty

27 46.6 21 45.7 10 43.5 28 51.9 18 43.9 12 37.5

Not record at all 17 29.3 13 28.3 1 4.3 14 25.9 12 29.3 5 15.6Does not apply 7 12.1 3 6.5 4 17.4 4 7.4 4 9.8 6 18.8

Recording the topics/subjects of unfunded international research

Approximately a sixth of institutions record (17%) and hold centrally (15%)information on the topics or subjects of unfunded international research and just lessthan half hold it at school, department or faculty level (44%). More than a quarter ofinstitutions (28%) do not hold this information at all (Table 56).

Table 56 - Recording the topics/subjects of unfunded international research:overall

N % Total

Record 22 17 132




58 44 132



36

SI/GCs are by far the most likely to record (44%) and hold centrally (44%) thetopics/subjects of unfunded international research, and the most likely to collate andreport on it (26%). Pre-92, post-92, large and medium sized institutions are the mostlikely not to record this information at all (Table 57). There are insufficient data toanalyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 56).

Table 57 - Recording the topics/subjects of unfunded international research:by type and size



1 2 9 20 6 26 6 11 3 7 7 22


26 45 21 46 10 44 27 50 18 44 12 38


Recording the number of university staff involved in unfunded internationalresearch

A significant minority of responding HEIs (39%) do not record this information at alland where they do for a third (34%) it is in the school, department or faculty ratherthan centrally. Overall only 14% record it and 11% collate and report the information(Table 58).

Table 58 - Recording the number of university staff involved in unfundedinternational research: overall

N % Total

Record 19 14 132




45 34 132



SI/GCs are by far the most likely to record this information and hold it centrally(39%). By contrast only 5% of pre-92 and record and hold it centrally. Over half oflarge HEIs and almost half of pre-92s (48%) and post-92s (44) do not record it at all.The issue do not apply for one fifth of SI/GCs and small institutions (Table 59). Thereare insufficient data to analyse the findings by country (Appendix Table 57).

37

Table 59 - Recording the number of university staff involved in unfundedinternational research: type and size



2 3 8 17 5 22 5 9 4 10 6 19


20 35 15 33 9 39 16 30 17 42 11 34


Recording data on unfunded collaboration

Summary

The majority of institutions are content to hold information on unfunded researchcollaborations at department, school or faculty level if they hold it at all. Around halfof large and pre-92 institutions do not hold such information. However SI/GCs arethe most likely to collate, report and hold this information centrally as well as at morelocal levels.

Overall summary of recording of IRC

The recording of IRC information is more likely to occur at central level if it is relatedto income; otherwise, IRC information is likely to be held at more local levels. This isreflected in the recording of information on unfunded research collaborations, whichis recorded more carefully by specialised institutions than other kinds. This perhapsreflects the fact that larger institutions are more financially driven institutions, whileSI/GCs value other types of international research collaborations such as thosebased on subject-based academic research or knowledge sharing.

4.4 The uses and distribution of information

Almost all (95%) responding institutions use information recorded on IRC in theirRAE submissions, over 80% use it in regular reports to committees or managers andin response to ad hoc enquiries and 79% use it in regular reports to external bodies(Table 60).

38

Table 60- How this information is used: overall

N % Total

Is the information used in the RAE submission? 117 95 123

Is the information used in regular reports to committees ormanagers?

99 83 120

Is the information used in regular reports to externalbodies?

94 79 119

Is the information used in response to ad hoc enquiries? 100 86 117

Is the information used for other reasons, please specify? 8 50 16

Post-92 HEIs are the most likely group to use this information in submissions to theRAE (100%) as opposed to 86% of SI/GCs. However, SI/GCs are more likely to useit in internal reports to committees and managers. Large HEIs are marginally morelikely to use this information in their RAE submissions and in response to ad hocenquiries while small HEIs are marginally more likely to use it in internal reports tocommittees or managers (Table 61). There are insufficient data to analyse thefindings by country (Appendix Table 58).

Table 61 - How this information is used: by type and size


N % N % N % N % N % N %Is the informationused in the RAEsubmission?

50 94 45 100 18 86 51 100 35 92 27 90

Is the informationused in regularreports tocommittees ormanagers?

44 82 33 79 18 90 40 82 31 80 24 86

Is the informationused in regularreports to externalbodies?

44 83 33 77 14 74 41 84 29 74 21 78

Is the informationused in responseto ad hocenquiries?

46 87 35 85 16 84 44 92 31 82 22 82

Is the informationused for otherreasons, pleasespecify?

5 50 3 50 - - 7 78 - - 1 25

How the information is pulled together and provided to strategic groups orroles

It is the responsibility of one person or group to pull together information recorded onIRC for strategic groups or roles in 57% of all responding HEIs. This is most often thecase in SI/GCs (82%), small HEIs (68%) and in post-92 institutions (64%) and leastcommon in pre-92 (43) and medium sized institutions (48%, Table 62).

39

Table 62 - One group or person who collates information recorded on IRC forstrategic groups or roles?

N % Total

All responding HEIs 73 57 128

England 57 59 97

Scotland 6 40 15

Wales 7 88 8

Northern Ireland 1 33 3

Pre 25 43 58

Post 28 64 44

SI/GC 18 82 22

Large 31 59 53

Medium 19 48 40

Small 21 68 31

40

5. Conclusion

Strategic approach

Whist institutions do have high level individuals responsible for research andinternationalisation and do have strategies for both and do have institutional researchcommittee structures, it is not the norm for those to refer to IRC, and where they dorefer to IRC it tends not to be to a great degree of specificity. Almost all HEIs have aresearch strategy, two thirds have an internationalisation strategy and less than halfhave a combined strategy. Pre-92 HEIs are more likely to have a combined strategy.Combined strategies are also more likely in large institutions.

Internationalisation seems to be more important to pre-92 institutions than othertypes of HEI and they are more likely to have a strategy that combinesinternationalisation and research. For post-92 institutions these are more likely to bedealt with separately. HEIs are more likely to have strategies that specify partnertype and particular countries and regions than they are to specify subject area.Smaller and specialist institutions (SI/GCs) are more likely to specify details ofpartners, regions and subject areas favoured while larger institutions are more likelyto produce strategies containing income targets.

Operational structures and processes

Overall HEIs have a considerable amount of IRC across all the identified forms ofIRC. For all HEI types, pre-92 and large HEIs are most likely to engage with IRC.However, there is quite a large discrepancy between the nature of internationalresearch collaborations by type and size, for example few small HEIs or SI/GCsreceive international or national public research funding and also have lessinternational post-graduate research students. Our findings suggest that the largerthe institution the more likely it is to have committees at school/department/facultylevel dealing with research and to have separate committees dealing withpostgraduate research, and that this is general across HEI types. Most suchcommittees do tend to deal with IRC to some extent.

There seems to be a discrepancy between the level of activity engaged in by HEIsand the level of strategic overview. A quarter of lead persons for all types of researchare likely to have significant responsibility for IRC and over half the responsibility tosome extent. This is the same across all the different roles. Responsibility forpostgraduate offices most often falls within the Registry (or equivalent) or researchoffice, though in larger institutions (pre- and post-92) there is more likelihood thatresponsibility will be spread among other areas, often at research centre or facultylevel. Smaller and specialist institutions are more likely to centralise responsibility.

Recording information about international research collaborations

There is a greater likelihood that income records of UK and overseas fundedresearch collaborations will be kept than the actual location, partner details or subjectareas of such linkages, and while general this is even more true for largerinstitutions. On issues less directly related to income, such as the recording of details

41

of partners, subject areas and countries where IRC occurs, information is more likelyto be held in departments, faculties and schools. Small institutions and SI/GCsappear more likely to collate and report on information by subject area (perhapsbecause subject area information is more important to smaller institutions with anarrower IRC profile) but they are also more likely not to record such information atall.

Surprisingly little data are held centrally on where overseas research students arelocated geographically, or with what kind of partner institutions. Medium sized andPost-92 institutions are most likely to record and hold data centrally. For between athird and a half of small and specialised respondents these issues do not apply. Themajority of institutions are content to hold information on unfunded researchcollaborations at department, school or faculty level if they hold it at all. Around halfof large and pre-92 institutions do not hold such information at all. However SI/GCsare the most likely to collate, report and hold this information centrally as well as atmore local levels.

The uses and distribution of information

Despite the variability by institution type and size there is a relatively high degree ofuniformity regarding the usefulness of IRC data, with all types of HEI almost as likelyto use it for a variety of purposes relating to their external image (RAE, externalbodies and publicity material where appropriate) and their own internal reporting.Collation of the various strands of IRC information is more likely to be concentratedin smaller and more specialised institutions, reflecting the structures and processesfor accumulating and reporting such information.

There does seem to be an interaction between size and type of institution working atdifferent levels and in different ways throughout our findings. For example there is atendency for pre-92 and post-92 institutions to be more involved with funded IRC andto have research links through postgraduate students, and these institutions are alsolikely to be larger HEIs than the specialist institutions that exhibit a different set ofIRC behaviours and relationships. As we have seen, SI/GC and smaller institutionsare more likely to be interested in unfunded research links between academics andto record information centrally.

It follows that responsibilities are structured in relation to size and financialimportance: there is more of a tendency to concentrate responsibilities and holdinformation centrally in small and SI/GC institutions, perhaps because eitherinternationalisation and research links are more important to these institutions orbecause these institutions are not large enough to devolve such responsibilities todepartment, school or faculty level. In SI/GCs where individual specialist subjectareas (departments, schools or faculties) might be expected to have more autonomy,it could be that senior faculty members also have senior management roles andresponsibility at a lower level would be unnecessary duplication.

Smaller and SI/GCs are more interested in unfunded research, perhaps becausethey value the prestige and the development of their IRC profile, coming from a lowerbase. For larger and pre- Post-92s on the other hand, international researchcollaborations may be a long-entrenched and important element of their business

42

model and therefore that financial information has a much higher value to theseorganisations. Larger organisations also have additional layers of responsibility atdepartment, school or faculty level and it is at these levels that less financialinformation can be held.

AuthorsColin McCaigSue DrewDave MarsdenPeggy Haughton

CEIR & CRE,Sheffield Hallam University,January 2008

43

Appendix I - Introductory letter to HEIs

10 May 2007

Dear colleague

We would be very grateful for your help with a research study we are conducting onbehalf of the DfES. The aim is to "reveal the extent to which HEIs monitor andcoordinate within their own institutions any research collaboration that takes placebetween the institution and those abroad". The DfES is interested in exploring theextent to which HEIs are developing agendas around internationalisation and suchcoordination is being seen as an indicator. The findings will feed into the PrimeMinister’s Initiative for International Education so will play an important role in thedevelopment of the higher education sector as a whole.

Please can you note that the focus of this research is international researchcollaborations only, rather than research in general, and that we do not require anyinformation about actual collaborations but, rather, about institutional processes. Allinformation provided by HEIs will be confidential to the research team and will beaggregated and anonymised in reporting to the DfES. It will not be possible toidentify any individual HEI in any report published from this survey.

We hope that you yourself will find it helpful to complete our questionnaire, as thepilot for our study has suggested that this may help in pulling together information onthis topic. The study should provide valuable information for the sector as a whole.

Our pilot has suggested that those with a central role dealing with externally fundedresearch project might be the best starting point for us. We are only sending onerequest to each HEI and very much hope that you will be able to complete it for us.We think that you may need to consult others in your institution. This may includewhoever is centrally responsible for research degrees and others with an institutionaloverview or a research responsibility in departments/ schools/faculties (e.g. assistantdeans).

We would be very grateful if you could complete and return the attachedquestionnaire by 8th June in the pre-paid envelope provided. Alternatively, you cancomplete it online at http://creonline.shu.ac.uk/tne.pdf

There is no statutory obligation for this information, however your help would begreatly appreciated. A member of the research team will telephone you in the nextfew weeks to see if you have any queries or concerns. Thank you very much for yourhelp.

Yours sincerely

44

Appendix II - Additional tables

International Research Collaboration in UK HigherEducation Institutions

Table 1 - PVC responsibilities: by country

England Scotland Wales NorthernIreland

N % N % N % N %PVC responsible for bothresearch andinternationalisation

17 23.9 4 28.6 1 20.0 2 100

PVC responsible for research 77 86.5 9 81.8 7 100.0 1 50PVC responsible forinternationalisation

47 56.0 9 75.0 2 33.3 0 -

Table 2 - Research strategy by country


N % N % N % N %Does your institution have astrategy that combines researchand internationalisation?

30 43.5 7 53.8 1 20.0 0 -

Does your institution have aresearch strategy?

76 95.0 12 100.0 8 100.0 3 100.0

Does your institution have aninternationalisation strategy?

52 70.3 8 72.7 4 66.7 1 100.0

Does your institution haveanother strategy, please specify?*

5 25.0 0 - - - - -

45

Table 3 - Strategy for international research collaborations: by country

Yes % No % NA %Does your institution have a strategy thatcombines research andinternationalisation?

30 43.5 38 55.1 1 1.4

Does your institution have a researchstrategy?

76 95.0 3 3.8 1 1.3


52 70.3 20 27.0 2 2.7

England

Does your institution have another strategy,please specify?

5 25.0 4 20.0 11 55.0

Does your institution have a strategy thatcombines research andinternationalisation?

7 53.8 6 46.2 - -


12 100.0 - - - -


8 72.7 3 27.3 - -

Scotland


- - 1 100.0 - -


1 20.0 4 80.0 - -


3 100.0 - - - -


1 100.0 - - - -

Wales


- - - - - -


- 1 100.0 - -


3 100.0 - - - -


1 100.0 - - - -

NI


1 100.0 - - - -

46

Table 4 - Strategy for international research collaborations: by Type


26 61.9 16 38.1 - -


39 95.1 2 4.9 - -


26 72.2 10 27.8 - -

Pre-92


3 37.5 2 25.0 3 37.5


9 28.1 23 71.9 - -


39 97.5 - - 1 2.5


26 72.2 9 25.0 1 2.8

Post-92


2 18.2 2 18.2 7 63.6


3 21.4 10 71.4 1 7.1


22 95.7 1 4.3 - -


13 65.0 6 30.0 1 5.0

SI/GC


- - 1 50.0 1 50.0

Table 5 - Strategy for international research collaborations: by Size


19 50.0 19 50.0 - -


38 92.7 2 4.9 1 2.4


25 69.4 10 27.8 1 2.8

Large


4 30.8 3 23.1 6 46.2


12 44.4 15 55.6 - -


33 100.0 - - - -


22 73.3 8 26.7 - -

Medium


- - - - 2 100.0


7 30.4 15 65.2 1 4.3


29 96.7 1 3.3 - -


18 69.2 7 26.9 1 3.8

Small


1 16.7 2 33.3 3 50.0

47

Table 6 - Content of international research collaboration strategy: by country

Does your strategy... Yes % No % NA %

specify particular countries orregions?

29 39.2% 38 51.4% 7 9.5%

refer to a focus on specifictypes of partnership?

39 53.4% 26 35.6% 8 11.0%

specify subject areas? 18 24.7% 45 61.6% 10 13.7%

have income targets? 8 10.8% 58 78.4% 8 10.8%

England

other targets?* 12 19.7% 38 62.3% 11 18.0%

specify particular countries orregions?

5 45.5% 5 45.5% 1 9.1%


8 72.7% 2 18.2% 1 9.1%

specify subject areas? 3 27.3% 7 63.6% 1 9.1%have income targets? 3 27.3% 7 63.6% 1 9.1%

Scotland

other targets?* 2 25.0% 4 50.0% 2 25.0%specify particular countries orregions?

1 50.0% 1 50.0%


1 50.0% 1 50.0%

specify subject areas? 1 50.0% 1 50.0%have income targets? 1 50.0% 1 50.0%

Wales

other targets?* 1 50.0% 1 50.0%specify particular countries orregions?

4 100.0%


2 66.7% 1 33.3%

specify subject areas? 3 75.0% 1 25.0%have income targets? 1 33.3% 2 66.7%

NI

other targets?* 1 100.0%

Table 7 - Central committees: by country


N % N % N % N %Does your institution have acentral committee responsiblefor research andinternationalisation?

9 14.1 2 18.2 1 16.7 2 66.7

Does your institution have acentral committee responsiblefor research?

88 97.8 13 92.9 7 87.5 3 100.0

Does your institution have acentral committee responsiblefor internationalisation?

32 40.5 4 36.4 2 40.0 2 100.0

Does your institution haveanother central committeedealing with research/internationalisation, pleasespecify?*

4 25.0 - - - - 1 100.0

48

Table 8 & 9 - Central committees: by Type and Size


Does yourinstitution have...

N % N % N % N % N % N %a central committeeresponsible forresearch andinternationalisation?

8 20.0 3 9.7 3 23.1 4 10.8 5 20.0 5 22.7

a central committeeresponsible forresearch?

49 94.2 42 97.7 21 100.0 48 94.1 35 97.2 29 100.0

a central committeeresponsible forinternationalisation?

20 45.5 11 30.6 9 52.9 18 43.9 10 32.3 12 48.0

another centralcommittee pleasespecify?*

2 22.2 1 14.3 8 47.1 1 16.7 1 16.7 2 40.0

Table 10 - Level of research decision making: by country


Is the highest level committeedealing with research in theinstitution responsible for.... N % N % N % N %the research strategy? 91 94.8 14 93.3 8 100.0 4 100.0externally funded research? 77 82.8 12 80.0 6 75.0 4 100.0the RAE? 86 90.5 13 86.7 7 87.5 4 100.0researchstudents/studentships?

56 60.9 8 57.1 3 37.5 4 100.0

unfunded research? 49 53.8 8 57.1 4 50.0 1 33.3

Tables 11 & 12 - Level of research decision making: by Type and Size


Is the highest levelcommittee dealing withresearch in the institutionresponsible for....

N % N % N % N % N % N %

the research strategy? 55 94.8 43 100.0 20 87.0 50 94.3 39 100.0 29 90.6externally fundedresearch?

50 89.3 33 78.6 17 73.9 37 74.0 36 92.3 27 84.4

the RAE? 53 94.6 39 88.6 19 82.6 44 86.3 39 97.5 28 87.5researchstudents/studentships?

36 64.3 22 52.4 14 66.7 28 53.8 26 70.3 18 60.0

unfunded research? 26 47.3 21 51.2 15 71.4 21 42.0 21 56.8 20 66.7

49

Table 13 - Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically tointernational research collaborations?: overall


extentYes, to some

extent No

Count18 74 37

Does your institution'scorporate plan referspecifically tointernational researchcollaborations?

%14.0% 57.4% 28.7%

Table 14 - Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically tointernational research collaborations?: by country


extentYes, to some

extent No

Count13 57 27

England Does your institution'scorporate plan referspecifically tointernational researchcollaborations?

%13.4% 58.8% 27.8%

Count 3 7 5Scotland Does your institution'scorporate plan referspecifically tointernational researchcollaborations?

%

20.0% 46.7% 33.3%

Count 1 6 1Wales Does your institution'scorporate plan referspecifically tointernational researchcollaborations?

%

12.5% 75.0% 12.5%

Count 1 2NorthernIreland


%

33.3% 66.7%

Count 1

Country

OpenUniversity


%

100.0%

50

Table 15 - Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically tointernational research collaborations?: by type


extentYes, to some

extent No

Count10 38 9

Pre Does your institution'scorporate plan referspecifically tointernational researchcollaborations?

%17.5% 66.7% 15.8%

Count 3 28 14Post Does your institution'scorporate plan referspecifically tointernational researchcollaborations?

%

6.7% 62.2% 31.1%

Count 5 6 11

Pre /Post /SI

SI/GC Does your institution'scorporate plan referspecifically tointernational researchcollaborations?

%

22.7% 27.3% 50.0%

Table 16 - Does your institution's corporate plan refer specifically tointernational research collaborations?: by type


extentYes, to some

extent No

Count5 39 9

Large Does your institution'scorporate plan referspecifically tointernational researchcollaborations?

%9.4% 73.6% 17.0%

Count 7 22 11Medium Does your institution'scorporate plan referspecifically tointernational researchcollaborations?

%

17.5% 55.0% 27.5%

Count 6 11 14

Size ofinstitution

Small Does your institution'scorporate plan referspecifically tointernational researchcollaborations?

%

19.4% 35.5% 45.2%

Table 17 - Monitoring strategies by country

Broad brush Fairly specific Detailed

Count 22 27 6England Is the monitoring?

% 40.0% 49.1% 10.9%

Count 4 4 1Scotland Is the monitoring?

% 44.4% 44.4% 11.1%

Count 4Wales Is the monitoring?

% 100.0%

Count 1 1

Country

NorthernIreland

Is the monitoring?

% 50.0% 50.0%

51

Table 18 - Monitoring strategies by type


Count 18 16 4Pre Is the monitoring?

% 47.4% 42.1% 10.5%

Count 8 7 3Post Is the monitoring?

% 44.4% 38.9% 16.7%

Count 4 9 1

Pre /Post /SI

SI/GC Is the monitoring?

% 28.6% 64.3% 7.1%

Table 19 - Monitoring strategies by size


Count 12 14 4Large Is the monitoring?

% 40.0% 46.7% 13.3%

Count 13 8 2Medium Is the monitoring?

% 56.5% 34.8% 8.7%

Count 5 10 2

Size ofinstitution

Small Is the monitoring?

% 29.4% 58.8% 11.8%

52

Table 20 - Types of international research collaboration: by country

No Yes

Count20 79

Do you have internationalresearch collaborationsfunded by overseas publicbodies?

%20.2% 79.8%

Count 25 74Do you have internationalresearch collaborationsfunded by otherinternational organisations?

%25.3% 74.7%

Count 15 84Do you have internationalresearch collaborationsfunded by UK publicbodies?

%15.2% 84.8%

Count 24 75Do you have postgraduateresearch where studentsare located overseas?

% 24.2% 75.8%

Count 34 65Do you have postgraduateresearch where students'supervision is shared withan overseas partner?

%34.3% 65.7%

Count 8 91

England

Do you have unfundedresearch where academicscollaborate with overseascolleagues?

%8.1% 91.9%

Count 4 11Do you have internationalresearch collaborationsfunded by overseas publicbodies?

%26.7% 73.3%


%13.3% 86.7%


%13.3% 86.7%


% 46.7% 53.3%


%46.7% 53.3%

Count 4 11

Scotland


%26.7% 73.3%


%25.0% 75.0%


%37.5% 62.5%


%50.0% 50.0%


% 62.5% 37.5%

Count 5 3

Country

Wales

Do you have postgraduateresearch where students'supervision is shared with

%62.5% 37.5%

53

an overseas partner?

Count 2 6Do you have unfundedresearch where academicscollaborate with overseascolleagues?

%25.0% 75.0%


%25.0% 75.0%


%50.0% 50.0%


%25.0% 75.0%


% 50.0% 50.0%


%50.0% 50.0%

Count 2 2

NorthernIreland


%50.0% 50.0%

Count 1Do you have internationalresearch collaborationsfunded by overseas publicbodies?

%100.0%

Count 1Do you have internationalresearch collaborationsfunded by otherinternational organisations?

%100.0%

Count 1Do you have internationalresearch collaborationsfunded by UK publicbodies?

%100.0%

Count 1Do you have postgraduateresearch where studentsare located overseas?

% 100.0%

Count 1Do you have postgraduateresearch where students'supervision is shared withan overseas partner?

%100.0%

Count 1

OpenUniversity


%100.0%

54

Table 21 - Responsibility of lead person: by country

Yes No N/A

Count78 7 2

Does yourdepartment/faculty have ahead of researchinstitute/division/centre?

%89.7% 8.0% 2.3%

Count 51 24 2Does yourdepartment/faculty have aperson leading onexternally fundedresearch?

%

66.2% 31.2% 2.6%

Count 34 36 4Does yourdepartment/faculty have aperson leading on un-funded research?

%45.9% 48.6% 5.4%

Count 78 6 1Does yourdepartment/faculty have aperson leading onpostgraduate researchstudents?

%

91.8% 7.1% 1.2%

Count 28 17 8

England

Are these combined, and ifso how? % 52.8% 32.1% 15.1%

Count 13 1Does yourdepartment/faculty have ahead of researchinstitute/division/centre?

%92.9% 7.1%


%

64.3% 28.6% 7.1%


%46.2% 46.2% 7.7%


%

78.6% 14.3% 7.1%

Count 3 2

Scotland

Are these combined, and ifso how? % 60.0% 40.0%


%87.5% 12.5%


%

62.5% 25.0% 12.5%


%50.0% 33.3% 16.7%


%

75.0% 12.5% 12.5%

Count 3 1 1

Wales


Country

Northern Does your Count 4

55

department/faculty have ahead of researchinstitute/division/centre?

%100.0%

Count 1Does yourdepartment/faculty have aperson leading onexternally fundedresearch?

%

100.0%

Count 1Does yourdepartment/faculty have aperson leading on un-funded research?

%100.0%

Count 1

Ireland

Does yourdepartment/faculty have aperson leading onpostgraduate researchstudents?

%

100.0%

Count 1Does yourdepartment/faculty have ahead of researchinstitute/division/centre?

%100.0%

Count 1Does yourdepartment/faculty have aperson leading onexternally fundedresearch?

%

100.0%

Count 1Does yourdepartment/faculty have aperson leading on un-funded research?

%100.0%

Count 1

OpenUniversity

Does yourdepartment/faculty have aperson leading onpostgraduate researchstudents?

%

100.0%

56

Table 22 - Responsibility of lead person: by type

Yes No N/A

Count47 2 3


%90.4% 3.8% 5.8%


%

61.2% 30.6% 8.2%


%41.3% 43.5% 15.2%


%

86.3% 7.8% 5.9%

Count 10 10 7

Pre


Count 40 3 1Does yourdepartment/faculty have ahead of researchinstitute/division/centre?

%90.9% 6.8% 2.3%

Count 24 12Does yourdepartment/faculty have aperson leading onexternally fundedresearch?

%

66.7% 33.3%

Count 16 18Does yourdepartment/faculty have aperson leading on un-funded research?

%47.1% 52.9%

Count 39 2Does yourdepartment/faculty have aperson leading onpostgraduate researchstudents?

%

95.1% 4.9%

Count 17 8 2

Post



%88.9% 11.1%


%

81.3% 18.8%

Count 9 6Does yourdepartment/faculty have aperson leading on un-funded research?

%60.0% 40.0%


%

82.4% 17.6%

Count 7 2

Pre /Post /SI

SI/GC

Are these combined, and ifso how? % 77.8% 22.2%

57

Table 23 - Responsibility of lead person: by size

Yes No N/A

Count47 2


%95.9% 4.1%


%

69.8% 27.9% 2.3%


%41.5% 51.2% 7.3%


%

91.5% 8.5%

Count 14 10 4

Large



%86.5% 5.4% 8.1%


%

60.6% 30.3% 9.1%


%53.3% 36.7% 10.0%


%

88.6% 2.9% 8.6%

Count 12 4 3

Medium



%85.7% 10.7% 3.6%


%

68.0% 32.0%


%45.8% 50.0% 4.2%


%

85.2% 14.8%

Count 8 6 2

Size ofinstitution

Small


58

Table 24 - IRC responsibilities of the lead person: by country


extentYes, to some

extent No

Count

21 45 10

Does the head of researchinstitute/division/centrespecifically deal withinternational researchcollaborations?

%

27.6% 59.2% 13.2%

Count 16 30 3Does the lead on externallyfunded researchspecifically deal withinternational researchcollaborations?

%

32.7% 61.2% 6.1%

Count 9 21 4Does the lead on un-funded researchspecifically deal withinternational researchcollaborations?

%

26.5% 61.8% 11.8%

Count 24 33 13Does the lead onpostgraduate researchstudents specifically dealwith international researchcollaborations?

%

34.3% 47.1% 18.6%

Count 8 12 1

England

Does the combined roleperson specifically dealwith international researchcollaborations?

%38.1% 57.1% 4.8%

Count 2 5 5Does the head of researchinstitute/division/centrespecifically deal withinternational researchcollaborations?

%

16.7% 41.7% 41.7%


%

37.5% 37.5% 25.0%


%

33.3% 50.0% 16.7%


%

30.0% 20.0% 50.0%

Count 1

Scotland


%100.0%


%

16.7% 50.0% 33.3%


%

25.0% 25.0% 50.0%

Count 1 1 1

Country

Wales

Does the lead on un-funded research %

33.3% 33.3% 33.3%

59

specifically deal withinternational researchcollaborations?


%

50.0% 25.0% 25.0%

Count 1 3 1Does the combined roleperson specifically dealwith international researchcollaborations?

%20.0% 60.0% 20.0%

Count 2 1Does the head of researchinstitute/division/centrespecifically deal withinternational researchcollaborations?

%

66.7% 33.3%

Count 1Does the lead on externallyfunded researchspecifically deal withinternational researchcollaborations?

%

100.0%

Count 1Does the lead on un-funded researchspecifically deal withinternational researchcollaborations?

%

100.0%

Count 1

NorthernIreland

Does the lead onpostgraduate researchstudents specifically dealwith international researchcollaborations?

%

100.0%

Count 1Does the head of researchinstitute/division/centrespecifically deal withinternational researchcollaborations?

%

100.0%

Count 1Does the lead on externallyfunded researchspecifically deal withinternational researchcollaborations?

%

100.0%

Count 1

OpenUniversity

Does the lead onpostgraduate researchstudents specifically dealwith international researchcollaborations?

%

100.0%

60

Table 25 - IRC responsibilities of the lead person: by type


extentYes, to some

extent No

Count

14 25 8


%

29.8% 53.2% 17.0%


%

34.5% 58.6% 6.9%


%

36.8% 57.9% 5.3%


%

39.5% 39.5% 20.9%

Count 4 4

Pre


%50.0% 50.0%


%

10.5% 73.7% 15.8%


%

18.2% 72.7% 9.1%


%

12.5% 68.8% 18.8%


%

22.6% 51.6% 25.8%

Count 3 10 2

Post


%20.0% 66.7% 13.3%


%

46.2% 15.4% 38.5%


%

50.0% 25.0% 25.0%

Count 3 4 2

Pre /Post /SI

SI/GC


33.3% 44.4% 22.2%

61



%

50.0% 25.0% 25.0%

Count 2 2Does the combined roleperson specifically dealwith international researchcollaborations?

%50.0% 50.0%

62

Table 26 - IRC responsibilities of the lead person: by size


extentYes, to some

extent No

Count

9 29 7


%

20.0% 64.4% 15.6%


%

29.6% 63.0% 7.4%


%

26.7% 60.0% 13.3%


%

33.3% 38.9% 27.8%

Count 5 6 2

Large


%38.5% 46.2% 15.4%


%

25.0% 59.4% 15.6%


%

30.0% 60.0% 10.0%


%

27.8% 55.6% 16.7%


%

37.9% 44.8% 17.2%

Count 3 7

Medium


%30.0% 70.0%


%

33.3% 33.3% 33.3%


%

37.5% 43.8% 18.8%

Count 3 7 1

Size ofinstitution

Small


27.3% 63.6% 9.1%

63



%

33.3% 42.9% 23.8%

Count 1 3Does the combined roleperson specifically dealwith international researchcollaborations?

%25.0% 75.0%

64

Table 27 - School / department / faculty level committees: by country

Yes No N/A

Count74 15 5

Is there a researchcommittee in eachdepartment/school/faculty? %

78.7% 16.0% 5.3%

Count 48 34 3

England

Is there a separatecommittee in eachdepartment/school/facultythat deals withpostgraduate degrees?

%

56.5% 40.0% 3.5%

Count 14 1Is there a researchcommittee in eachdepartment/school/faculty?

% 93.3% 6.7%

Count 9 5

Scotland


%

64.3% 35.7%


% 75.0% 25.0%

Count 3 5

Wales


%

37.5% 62.5%


% 50.0% 50.0%

Count 2 1

NorthernIreland


%

66.7% 33.3%

Count 1Is there a researchcommittee in eachdepartment/school/faculty?

% 100.0%

Count 1

Country

OpenUniversity


%

100.0%

65

Table 28 - IRC responsibility at school level: by country


extentYes, to some

extent No

Count12 51 8

Does the researchcommittee specifically dealwith international researchcollaborations?

%16.9% 71.8% 11.3%

Count 8 30 8

England

Does the separatecommittee specifically dealwith international researchcollaborations?

%17.4% 65.2% 17.4%

Count 1 8 3Does the researchcommittee specifically dealwith international researchcollaborations?

%8.3% 66.7% 25.0%

Count 1 4 2

Scotland


%14.3% 57.1% 28.6%


%16.7% 50.0% 33.3%

Count 1 1 1

Wales


%33.3% 33.3% 33.3%

Count 1Does the researchcommittee specifically dealwith international researchcollaborations?

%100.0%

Count 1 1

Country

NorthernIreland


%50.0% 50.0%

66

Table 29 - IRC responsibility at school level: by type


extentYes, to some

extent No

Count10 32 1


%23.3% 74.4% 2.3%

Count 8 19 5

Pre


%25.0% 59.4% 15.6%


%7.9% 65.8% 26.3%

Count 3 12 6

Post


%14.3% 57.1% 28.6%


%11.1% 55.6% 33.3%

Count 4 1

Pre /Post /SI

SI/GC


%80.0% 20.0%

67

Table 30 - IRC responsibility at school level: by size


extentYes, to some

extent No

Count7 29 6


%16.7% 69.0% 14.3%

Count 5 20 8

Large


%15.2% 60.6% 24.2%


%17.1% 68.6% 14.3%

Count 6 10 3

Medium


%31.6% 52.6% 15.8%


%7.7% 69.2% 23.1%

Count 5 1

Size ofinstitution

Small


%83.3% 16.7%

Table 31 - A central office for externally funded projects: overall

Yes No

Count111 19

Do you have a centraloffice that deals withexternally fundedresearch projects?

%85.4% 14.6%

68

Table 32 - A central office for externally funded projects: by country

Yes No

Count84 14

England Do you have a centraloffice that deals withexternally fundedresearch projects?

%85.7% 14.3%

Count 14 1Scotland Do you have a centraloffice that deals withexternally fundedresearch projects?

%93.3% 6.7%

Count 8Wales Do you have a centraloffice that deals withexternally fundedresearch projects?

%100.0%



%66.7% 33.3%

Count 1

Country

OpenUniversity


%100.0%

Table 33 - A central office for externally funded projects: by type

Yes No

Count56 2

Pre Do you have a centraloffice that deals withexternally fundedresearch projects?

%96.6% 3.4%

Count 38 7Post Do you have a centraloffice that deals withexternally fundedresearch projects?

%84.4% 15.6%

Count 15 7

Pre /Post /SI

SI/GC Do you have a centraloffice that deals withexternally fundedresearch projects?

%68.2% 31.8%

69

Table 34 - A central office for externally funded projects: by size

Yes No

Count49 5

Large Do you have a centraloffice that deals withexternally fundedresearch projects?

%90.7% 9.3%

Count 37 3Medium Do you have a centraloffice that deals withexternally fundedresearch projects?

%92.5% 7.5%

Count 23 8

Size ofinstitution

Small Do you have a centraloffice that deals withexternally fundedresearch projects?

%74.2% 25.8%

Table 35 - Responsibility for the central office: by country

Country

England Scotland WalesNorthernIreland

OpenUniversity

Under whoseresponsibilitydoes it sit?





Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %

A senior manager forresearch 38 45.2% 9 64.3% 2 25.0% 1 50.0% 1

100.0%

A senior manager in'Registry' or equivalent 12 14.3%

A senior manager forbusiness or enterprise 16 19.0% 3 21.4% 3 37.5%

A senior manager incorporate planning 1 1.2% 1 12.5%

Other, please specify 17 20.2% 2 14.3% 2 25.0% 1 50.0%

Table 36 - Central postgraduate office: overall

Do you have a centraloffice that deals with

postgraduate researchstudents?

Count %

Yes 105 80.8%

No 25 19.2%

70

Table 37 - Central postgraduate office: by country

Yes No

Count81 17

England Do you have a centraloffice that deals withpostgraduate researchstudents?

%82.7% 17.3%

Count 13 2Scotland Do you have a centraloffice that deals withpostgraduate researchstudents?

%86.7% 13.3%

Count 6 2Wales Do you have a centraloffice that deals withpostgraduate researchstudents?

%75.0% 25.0%


Do you have a centraloffice that deals withpostgraduate researchstudents?

%66.7% 33.3%

Count 1

Country

OpenUniversity

Do you have a centraloffice that deals withpostgraduate researchstudents?

%100.0%

Table 38 - Central postgraduate office: by type

Yes No

Count48 10

Pre Do you have a centraloffice that deals withpostgraduate researchstudents?

%82.8% 17.2%

Count 40 5Post Do you have a centraloffice that deals withpostgraduate researchstudents?

%88.9% 11.1%

Count 15 7

Pre /Post /SI

SI/GC Do you have a centraloffice that deals withpostgraduate researchstudents?

%68.2% 31.8%

Table 39 - Central postgraduate office: by size

Yes No

Count48 6

Large Do you have a centraloffice that deals withpostgraduate researchstudents?

%88.9% 11.1%

Count 34 6Medium Do you have a centraloffice that deals withpostgraduate researchstudents?

%85.0% 15.0%

Count 21 10

Size ofinstitution

Small Do you have a centraloffice that deals withpostgraduate researchstudents?

%67.7% 32.3%

71

Table 40 - Responsibility for the postgraduate office: by country

Country

England Scotland WalesNorthernIreland





Count % Count % Count % Count %

A senior manager forresearch 24 30.4% 5 38.5% 2 33.3% 1 50.0%

A senior manager in'Registry' or equivalent 39 49.4% 5 38.5% 2 33.3%

A senior manager forbusiness or enterprise 1 1.3% 1 7.7% 1 50.0%

Other, please specify 15 19.0% 2 15.4% 2 33.3%

Table 41 - Recording of income from overseas funded projects: by country

No Yes

Count % Count %

England recorded 30 30.3 69 69.7

collated/reported on 41 41.4 58 58.6

held centrally 21 21.2 78 78.8

held in dept/school/faculty 62 62.6 37 37.4

not recorded at all 98 99.0 1 1.0

does not apply 93 93.9 6 6.1

Scotland recorded 4 26.7 11 73.3




not recorded at all 15 100.0


Wales recorded 2 25.0 6 75.0






recorded 2 50.0 2 50.0NorthernIreland



held in dept/school/faculty 4 100.0



OpenUniversity

recorded 1 100.0

collated/reported on 1 100.0

held centrally 1 100.0



does not apply 1 100.0

72

Table 42 - Recording of income from UK funded research projects that haveinternational collaborations: by country

No Yes

Count % Count %



















Northern Ireland recorded 2 50.0 2 50.0






Open University recorded 1 100.0






73

Table 43 - Central Office titles

Title: research office or support NPre-92 large 4Pre-92 medium 3Pre-92 small 2Post-92 large 4Post-92 medium 2Post-92 small 1SI/GC large 4Total 20Title: enterprise or business development NPre-92 large 5Pre-92 medium 7Post-92 large 8Post-92 medium 4SI/GC small 1Total 25Title: referring to funding NPre-92 large 4Pre-92 small 2Post-92 large 6Post-92 medium 1SI/GC small 1Total 14Title: linked to knowledge transfer NPre-92 medium 1Post-92 large 1Post-92 medium 1Post-92 small 1SI/GC medium 2SI/GC small 2Total 8Title: linked to development or innovation NPre-92 large 3Pre-92 medium 7Post-92 large 1Post-92 medium 1SI/GC small 1Total 13Title: linked to graduate study NPost-92 large 2Post-92 medium 1Post-92 small 1Si/GC 1Total 5Grand total (including 3 others*) 88

*Three responding HEIs have a central office titled with reference to strategy (allpost-92s, one small, two large).

74

Table 44 - Recording the types of international partners: by country

No Yes

Count % Count %































75

Table 45 - Recording where funded IRC takes place: by country

No Yes

Count % Count %



















NorthernIreland

recorded 3 75.0 1 25.0






OpenUniversity

recorded 1 100.0






76

Table 46 - Recording of the subject of international research collaborations bycountry

No Yes

Count % Count %































77

Table 47 - Recording the number of postgraduate research students locatedoverseas: by country

No Yes

Count % Count %



















NorthernIreland

recorded 2 50.0 2 50.0






OpenUniversity

recorded 1 100.0






78

Table 48 - Recording the type of international partners in research supervision:by country

No Yes

Count % Count %



















NorthernIreland

recorded 2 50.0 2 50.0






OpenUniversity

recorded 1 100.0






79

Table 49 - Recording the countries where students are located: by country

No Yes

Count % Count %



















NorthernIreland

recorded 2 50.0 2 50.0






OpenUniversity

recorded 1 100.0






80

Table 50 - Recording the topics/subjects of the research students: by country

No Yes

Count % Count %



















NorthernIreland

recorded 2 50.0 2 50.0






OpenUniversity

recorded 1 100.0






81

Table 51 - Recording the number of unfunded research projects involvinginternational collaborations by country

No Yes

Count % Count %













Wales recorded 8 100.0






NorthernIreland

recorded 3 75.0 1 25.0






OpenUniversity

recorded 1 100.0






82

Table 52 - Recording the types of international partners / colleagues forunfunded international research: by country

No Yes

Count % Count %



















NorthernIreland

recorded 3 75.0 1 25.0






OpenUniversity

recorded 1 100.0






83

Table 53 - Recording the types of international partners/colleagues forunfunded international research: by type

No Yes

Count % Count %

Pre recorded 53 91.4 5 8.6






Post recorded 39 84.8 7 15.2






SI/GC recorded 13 56.5 10 43.5






Table 54 - Recording the types of international partners/colleagues forunfunded international research: by size

No Yes

Count % Count %

Large recorded 46 85.2 8 14.8






Medium recorded 34 82.9 7 17.1






Small recorded 25 78.1 7 21.9






84

Table 55 - Recording the topics/subjects of unfunded international research:by country

No Yes

Count % Count %







Scotland recorded 15 100.0












NorthernIreland

recorded 3 75.0 1 25.0






OpenUniversity

recorded 1 100.0






85

Table 57 - Recording the number of university staff involved in unfundedinternational research: by country

No Yes

Count % Count %



















NorthernIreland

recorded 3 75.0 1 25.0






OpenUniversity

recorded 1 100.0






86

Table 58 - How this information is used: by country

Yes No N/A

Count % Count % Count %

EnglandIs the information used in theRAE submission?

88 93.6 3 3.2 3 3.2

Is the information used in regularreports to committees ormanagers?

74 80.4 17 18.5 1 1.1

Is the information used in regularreports to external bodies?

72 79.1 18 19.8 1 1.1

Is the information used inresponse to ad hoc enquiries?

77 85.6 8 8.9 5 5.6

Is the information used for otherreasons, please specify?

4 36.4 2 18.2 5 45.5

ScotlandIs the information used in theRAE submission?

15 100.0


13 92.9 1 7.1


11 78.6 3 21.4


13 92.9 1 7.1


2 100.0

WalesIs the information used in theRAE submission?

6 100.0


5 71.4 1 14.3 1 14.3


5 71.4 1 14.3 1 14.3


5 71.4 1 14.3 1 14.3


1 50.0 1 50.0

NorthernIreland

Is the information used in theRAE submission?

3 100.0


2 100.0


2 100.0


1 100.0


1 100.0

OpenUniversity

Is the information used in theRAE submission?

1 100.0

87


1 100.0


1 100.0


1 100.0


1

Appendix III

Questionnaire

Ref: DIUS Research Report 08 08

© Sheffield Hallam University 2008

ISBN: 978 1 84478 996 2

www.dius.gov.uk/researchPublished by the Department for Innovation,Universities and Skills

international research collaboration in heis

Documents

inclusion research

denise mcbride

heis of over80

sue drew

john mcbride

dave marsden

centre forresearch

claire wolstenholmecentre