In an article in last week’s Times Higher Education magazine Professor David Colquhoun (Pharmacology, UCL) argues that the UK’s universities should be divided into teaching and research institutions in order to concentrate and subsequently raise the standard of UK research.
Colquhoun argues that research funding in its current form is too diffuse to have sufficient impact. Instead research activities should be confined to pre-1992 universities which would no longer provide conventional undergraduate teaching. The post-1992 universities would then become teaching only institutions, still fostering critical thinking but covering a wider range of subjects in a more general way. These new undergraduate courses ,Colquhoun argues, would not need to be taught by active researchers who would then be free to focus on their research and a limited amount of highly specialised teaching.
Is Colquhoun’s proposed model that different from the existing system? He argues for the concentration of research funding, but these monies are already fairly focused. In 2009/2010 the Russell Group of universities received 62% of total recurrent research funding in England* whilst representing 17% of UK universities.
Are high level researchers really fettered by undergraduate teaching? This seems odd when so much of the teaching in research focused institutions is done either by postgraduate students or by part-time, hourly paid academic staff on insecure short term contracts who are not usually expected to contribute to research outputs.
Putting aside the debate about whether or not Colquhoun is suggesting a new model or simply an exaggerated version of the current system, it is important to question whether or not teaching and research could be so easily separated between institutions.
The opportunity to engage with researchers at the forefront of their field is often a reason why undergraduates may choose to apply to a particular institution. In turn the chance to inspire the next generation of researchers may appeal to those isolated from wider academic life by bid-writing, solitary research or the minutiae of project management. Being able to explain complex aspects of a discipline to the most novice of students is the mark of someone who truly knows their subject, indeed it is often a good way to interrogate your own understanding. In addition I am sure that every academic who has taught has at some point left the classroom with their ideas challenged or with a fertile new perspective on something very familiar.
Whilst there are times when academics need time to focus solely on their research, preventing them from engaging with those taking their first steps into a discipline denies them an opportunity for inspiration and reinvigoration. I question the passion of those academics who choose not to carry out research, as opposed to those rendered unable because of teaching or administrative pressures. There may be some academics who never publish or attempt to engage wider publics in their work yet read the latest research and continually refresh their teaching. However I would suggest they remain few and far between. Instead a lack of willingness to research may result from becoming jaded or a sense of complacency. If this is the case are these people likely to make good teachers? After all if you cannot see something valuable and exciting about contributing to the further understanding of your field then how can you enthuse undergraduates so they may in turn contribute to it in the future?
Annie Gosling
King George VI Fellow
* Source: The Russell Group
To comment on what you read, email: comments@cumberlandlodge.ac.uk
