ID165 Listen!

The Idea

World class research needs world class infrastructure and support services. The decisions on how to implement these are taken by senior members of the University. However, from talking to some (by no means all) of these leaders, it is clear that a significant fraction of them do not understand how laboratory research is done and consequently decisions are taken that impair our ability to do research. We need better informed leadership (I apologize if you are offended, I mean to be honest not offensive). 

Some examples to illustrate my point: 

• When a grant finishes on paper, residual funds need to remain in place to address issues raised by reviewers, not recovered  by the University. 
• We can’t replace all our equipment with the latest version that confirms to IT requirements – we don’t have the funds. 
• "20 hours per annum to supervise a laboratory PhD student” (WAM) Err…that’s the first month! 
• "Revise and resubmit rejected grants". Where? We can now only apply to funders pay for our time. 
• "Plan funding the repair of equipment". Who funds that? Charging internally doesn’t work because we don’t have enough grant holders. 
• "Assess research by impact." Laboratory research can take years to impact. The first semiconductor was discovered in 1833, the first computer chip in 1959. It is not reasonable to compare laboratory research which may take years to have impact, to say, clinical research whose benefits may emerge more rapidly. 

The strategy I propose Keele adopts is to listen to its research-active staff when designing policies that affect research. A similar approach might be considered in other areas too. 

Why This Idea Should Be Considered

The University is unintentionally creating an infrastructure that hinders research and this problem is not linked to just one faculty. The University wants world-class research, but this needs world-class support.  

How We Would Implement This Idea

A starting point to address these issues could be to conduct a survey of staff conducting laboratory research and ask them what barriers Keele creates that makes their research harder (and what is already good and should be kept). And what could be put in place to facilitate research and improve our success in obtaining funding and producing world-class research. The senior leadership teams could then use the outcome of that to inform their decision making. And then when further policy changes are made in the future, ask us again. In short, Listen! 

What Success Would Look Like

Improved research output, improved REF scores, improved grant funding, improved reputation. Maybe even happier members of staff?