Dear Mr Naylor,
Re:
2003/23: Response from the Academy of Social Sciences:
Chair Professor Ian Forbes,
Nottingham
Consultations Officer,
Dr Sara Delamont, Cardiff (email: Delamont@cardiff.ac.uk)
The Academy for the Learned Societies in the Social Sciences (hereafter The Academy) regrets that the formal consultation on the document Improving Standards in Postgraduate Research Degree Programmes only involves HEIs. The Academy, because of its membership of 300 plus Academicians and its 40 plus learned societies represents most of the social scientists who would be required to implement these standards across the social sciences. The Academy has, therefore, chosen to comment at this point.
1. The Skills Training Requirements
While many of the skills listed
in Annex A are already embodied in the ESRC training guidelines and are
therefore inculcated in postgraduate social science students, there are
some infelicitous words and phrases that the Academy would wish to be
reconsidered.
B6, for example, is phrased in a way that excludes disciplines where 'experimental
techniques' are not used, such as Social History, Economic History, and
Social Anthropology.
2. Issues for Consultation
36a: The Academy, which is committed to basing policy on sound social science research, is not aware of a robust evidence base upon which to decide whether or not the approach set out in the document is 'the best way' to respond to concerns about RDPs. The Academy would expect an evaluation of the threshold standards and the good practice guidelines to be conducted by competent social scientists during the next five years.
36b: The threshold standards and guidelines for good practice are not objectionable to the Academy.
36c: It is not possible nor appropriate to set numerical targets for a critical mass of students, of postdoctoral researchers, or research active staff in the social sciences. The Academy would be prepared to discuss what strategies an HEI should adopt to ensure that research students, postdoctoral researchers, and research active staff in the social sciences as a whole are not socially (Eggleston and Delamont, 1983) or intellectually (Deem and Brehony, 2001) isolated, but could not countenance such subtle and complex issues being reduced to simple numerical targets. The use of CIT, regional, and learned society networks can, and should, be used to prevent intellectual isolation.
36d: The Academy rejects the threshold standard 2B. Calculating submissions rates across a whole institution, rather than at the level of cognate areas, such as Physical Sciences, subjects allied to Medicine, Humanities etc., will not yield useful data for funders or other stakeholders. It would be more helpful to all stakeholders and potential stakeholders to require that the submission rates be published for 6 - 8 broad areas.
The Academy would regard 2c as more important than 2b.
36e: It is vital that any assessment arrangements are light-touch, and do not involve HEIs, departments, or individuals in any more bureaucratic procedures. Good institutions will be able to demonstrate adherence to the requirements in their institutional audits.
Professor Ian Forbes
Nottingham University
University Park
Nottingham NG7 2RD
email: Ian.Forbes@nottingham.ac.uk
