Analysis of organisational performance
Tuesday, 14 August 2012
No room for Fool’s Gold when it comes to the British economy
Our sports stars have done us proud this summer - never mind Tour de France - its been a Tour de Force. There will no doubt be political squabbles over the immediate economic benefit of London 2012 but the British public have received a feelgood factor that in itself is a pretty good return on investment. Its certainly been enough to temporarily take our take most people's minds off the double dip recession.
To my mind, the Government could do worse than seek inspiration from TeamGB when it comes to the economy – they have systematically combined determination, planning, smart training and teamwork to lead a ruthlessly competitive international pack in a tough competition. We need to learn from this impressive display if we are going to power our way back to sustainable growth for UK.
The Government has persisted with a one-dimensional approach to economic fitness – trying unsuccessfully to shed a few pounds through a diet of austerity and the same old training regime of quantitative easing. It’s not working and a more sophisticated approach is needed. There have been recent calls, including most notably by Boris Johnson, for us to invest in the UK's infrastructure. He's right.
It seems obvious to me that we must create infrastructure which will entice the most creative and brightest minds from across the world to the UK – especially entrepreneurs. We must also ensure that they generate jobs; a skilled and experienced workforce is as vital a part of infrastructure for business as transport and broadband.
The success of Team GB was epitomised by the sustained success of cyclists. Even if our economy had the yellow jersey or a gold medal, we can’t afford the luxury of resting on our laurels. We need to invest in the future if we are to create a gold-plated British economy.
Tuesday, 7 August 2012
Universities need to be open and accessible to business
Warnings from the IMF, our GDP plummeting – our economy is in bad shape and the Government, it seems, is bereft of ideas about how to put it right. Austerity, apparently, seems to be the only game in town – yet now, more than ever, we need bold leadership and radical thinking about how to get back on track. We need an economic game changer and we are incredibly fortunate to have a platform from which we can launch it – our universities.
It largely goes unnoticed that our universities are world-class intellectual powerhouses, some of the very best on the globe at researching and discovering, inventing and innovating. As a country we seem to be intent on ignoring the extraordinary asset which could help us rebuild our crumbling economy.
Let me be clear: I am not a proponent of directing academics away from blue-sky research towards second-rate contract research for the highest bidder. I am passionate about the long term economic, social and cultural value of intellectual exploration through curiosity-driven research. But there seems to be a commonly held view that if you wish to preserve academic freedom, it’s impossible to provide any substantial economic benefit to the UK, and that attempting to do so will create profound damage to our research base.
I simply don't buy that argument – we already do make a major contribution to GDP. Yet we can do so much more if academics engage even more extensively with business. We should be using the base of our Higher Education sector to help our businesses innovate and grow, to encourage overseas corporations to invest in the UK and to create jobs for UK citizens. Many academics already do collaborate with business, recognizing that it can enrich and enhance the quality of scholarly work. Such interactions will become increasingly important to the academy, if we are to remain competitive in the global business that is higher education. We want more of our universities in the top 20 global leaders.
The Government started well in 2010 by protecting the research budget – a tall order but essential given that our competitors are investing much more into research. What is frustrating is we are not joined-up in using our assets for the best interests of the UK. Research activity generates highly trained staff, data, knowledge, and intellectual property and we should use them to our competitive advantage. take data and information - we all know the benefits of seeing new developments first, from academics who attend the latest conference to see unpublished work to businesses who have always recognised the importance of technology adoption and first-mover advantage
The question, then, is why, when we create some of the best knowledge and IP in the world, are we intent on pursuing initiatives such as Easy Access IP and Gold open access, without giving due consideration to the benefits for our economy. I am not opposed to the underlying principles of these initiatives, but in some cases they are unnecessary and in others they are unlikely to work. At worst they could mean that, as a nation, we will spend more money, do less research and accrue less economic benefit for the UK.
In my view, we can be smarter than this and use these assets as part of a package of measures to collectively make the UK the most attractive place for businesses committed to generating jobs and growth here.
We should create a network of research and innovation enterprise zones across the nation; places where large corporations could work alongside SMEs and university researchers from across sectors, rubbing shoulders, exchanging ideas and researching and innovating together. This would generate exciting new discoveries and then ensure their transformation at lightning speed into products, jobs and growth in the UK, for the UK. I’m not simply talking about science parks – but genuine research and innovation accelerators,promoting inward investment on scale and generating thousands of jobs.
The government would need to offer significant incentives to achieve this goal, perhaps including reduced corporation tax and flexibility on VAT to allow sharing of spaces. University researchers could make their research outputs preferentially available for a fixed period, perhaps alongside the embargo period of a green open access policy, providing an early view and hence opportunities for early uptake. We could also use these zones to pilot new ideas to liberate us from the stranglehold of red tape and burdensome regulation around employment law, immigration policies, procurement and others, which currently inhibit entrepreneurs and stifle growth.
Finally, the main assets of our universities are our people. It is people who innovate, collaborate and discover, not institutions. We need to nurture this talent and to boost innovation through enabling academics to gain exposure to new and different techniques in different settings. We need to enable people from across universities – from Professors, to Post-docs to PhD students – to move more freely amongst different types of institutions than is currently possible. We could establish a scheme whereby high-fliers rotate around a selection of small business, larger companies and university research departments to gain a variety of experience to develop new ways of innovating.
We are going to see profound changes in the next few years. The shift in economic power is clear and growing – and the signs are there for similar shifts in the global market place of higher education. We can chose to maintain a 19th Century view of higher education, or we can recognise academic research can be enhanced by serious collaboration with external enterprises. We must be bold and recognise that the depth of our knowledge base provides a competitive advantage that most countries are desperately trying to emulate, because they know that it creates enormous economic, social and cultural value. We have the opportunity of a generation to build a sustainable economy for the 21st century – but we need to open our eyes and seize the opportunity.
A version of this article was published on the Guardian HE Network at http://bit.ly/RjfomA
It largely goes unnoticed that our universities are world-class intellectual powerhouses, some of the very best on the globe at researching and discovering, inventing and innovating. As a country we seem to be intent on ignoring the extraordinary asset which could help us rebuild our crumbling economy.
Let me be clear: I am not a proponent of directing academics away from blue-sky research towards second-rate contract research for the highest bidder. I am passionate about the long term economic, social and cultural value of intellectual exploration through curiosity-driven research. But there seems to be a commonly held view that if you wish to preserve academic freedom, it’s impossible to provide any substantial economic benefit to the UK, and that attempting to do so will create profound damage to our research base.
I simply don't buy that argument – we already do make a major contribution to GDP. Yet we can do so much more if academics engage even more extensively with business. We should be using the base of our Higher Education sector to help our businesses innovate and grow, to encourage overseas corporations to invest in the UK and to create jobs for UK citizens. Many academics already do collaborate with business, recognizing that it can enrich and enhance the quality of scholarly work. Such interactions will become increasingly important to the academy, if we are to remain competitive in the global business that is higher education. We want more of our universities in the top 20 global leaders.
The Government started well in 2010 by protecting the research budget – a tall order but essential given that our competitors are investing much more into research. What is frustrating is we are not joined-up in using our assets for the best interests of the UK. Research activity generates highly trained staff, data, knowledge, and intellectual property and we should use them to our competitive advantage. take data and information - we all know the benefits of seeing new developments first, from academics who attend the latest conference to see unpublished work to businesses who have always recognised the importance of technology adoption and first-mover advantage
The question, then, is why, when we create some of the best knowledge and IP in the world, are we intent on pursuing initiatives such as Easy Access IP and Gold open access, without giving due consideration to the benefits for our economy. I am not opposed to the underlying principles of these initiatives, but in some cases they are unnecessary and in others they are unlikely to work. At worst they could mean that, as a nation, we will spend more money, do less research and accrue less economic benefit for the UK.
In my view, we can be smarter than this and use these assets as part of a package of measures to collectively make the UK the most attractive place for businesses committed to generating jobs and growth here.
We should create a network of research and innovation enterprise zones across the nation; places where large corporations could work alongside SMEs and university researchers from across sectors, rubbing shoulders, exchanging ideas and researching and innovating together. This would generate exciting new discoveries and then ensure their transformation at lightning speed into products, jobs and growth in the UK, for the UK. I’m not simply talking about science parks – but genuine research and innovation accelerators,promoting inward investment on scale and generating thousands of jobs.
The government would need to offer significant incentives to achieve this goal, perhaps including reduced corporation tax and flexibility on VAT to allow sharing of spaces. University researchers could make their research outputs preferentially available for a fixed period, perhaps alongside the embargo period of a green open access policy, providing an early view and hence opportunities for early uptake. We could also use these zones to pilot new ideas to liberate us from the stranglehold of red tape and burdensome regulation around employment law, immigration policies, procurement and others, which currently inhibit entrepreneurs and stifle growth.
Finally, the main assets of our universities are our people. It is people who innovate, collaborate and discover, not institutions. We need to nurture this talent and to boost innovation through enabling academics to gain exposure to new and different techniques in different settings. We need to enable people from across universities – from Professors, to Post-docs to PhD students – to move more freely amongst different types of institutions than is currently possible. We could establish a scheme whereby high-fliers rotate around a selection of small business, larger companies and university research departments to gain a variety of experience to develop new ways of innovating.
We are going to see profound changes in the next few years. The shift in economic power is clear and growing – and the signs are there for similar shifts in the global market place of higher education. We can chose to maintain a 19th Century view of higher education, or we can recognise academic research can be enhanced by serious collaboration with external enterprises. We must be bold and recognise that the depth of our knowledge base provides a competitive advantage that most countries are desperately trying to emulate, because they know that it creates enormous economic, social and cultural value. We have the opportunity of a generation to build a sustainable economy for the 21st century – but we need to open our eyes and seize the opportunity.
A version of this article was published on the Guardian HE Network at http://bit.ly/RjfomA
Wednesday, 1 August 2012
Open access to academic research
Open access – it’s a subject that gets many academic hearts racing. There has been an enthusiastic debate about the subject, especially now that the Government has recommended the adoption of gold level open access. For the interested observer, it might seem that there are two camps: those pioneers enthusiastic to move to this new world of openness for the advancement of scientific research, and then the others – like me – who oppose the move to a publicly funded gold option.
However, I think that despite the apparent conflict, it is likely most of us interested in research want a similar outcome, a sustainable publishing model that allows the timely disclosure of research at the lowest possible costs to the funders – often tax payers – and the users of research. The two camps differ, though, in how this aim might be achieved.
The heart of the disagreement lies in the merit of adoption of gold open access as part of a move to change the model of publishing. In this case, authors are required to pay a significant up-front access fee per article to allow all and sundry to read the papers. It is hard to provide an accurate estimate of the cost, but irrespective of the number, the science minister David Willetts is reported to have commented, "I think there's a massive net economic benefit here way beyond any £50m from the science budget."
Yet despite these bold words, I cannot see how the adoption of gold open access will accrue benefit to the UK economy. If that is a serious aspiration, then a serious discussion is needed on how preferential access can help British business and the British economy.
The benefits of moving to gold open access include the following: publishers will be in receipt of both access charges and subscription fees; UK researchers will be able to make available their work to anyone who wishes to read it immediately on publication; it will stimulate other countries to follow suit; the article is available in journal format which may make it easier to find through searching tools; it requires no substantial additional work on the part of the academic research community.
Those, like me, who question the adoption of the gold approach, funded by the taxpayer, generally favour the green approach in which the author is allowed to make a version of their paper available online after an embargo period.
The benefits of this approach are that publishers will continue to be in receipt of subscription charges; UK researchers will be able to make available their work to anyone who wishes to read it after an embargo period; and it will stimulate others countries to follow suit without additional access charges.
So the question remains, do we need to invest public funds into gold open access as a step towards achieving the overall goal of provision of a sustainable publishing model - or will green be more effective? My opinion is that at this stage, green offers a better option because it is likely to be lower cost to the funders of research.
The debate about academic publishing is incredibly important and of course, very little of this post addresses the real concerns about publishing in non-scientific areas which must be addressed. However, this current debate about gold versus green is really just the start:neither fully address the issues around disclosure of scientific research, and both options offer only an incremental change to the accessibility of research outcomes.
If we are to make research outcomes readily available in a timely fashion, then we will need to change the culture of academic publishing and disclosure. For example, much research never gets published because it is incomplete, or because the author does not get around to it, or editors and referees reject manuscripts which may then not be submitted or published elsewhere. Some would argue that such material has little value and so it does not matter if it is not published; I don't believe it is quite so clear cut.
These are all real barriers to accessibility of information that may be of value - and these barriers exist because where and how we publish underpins career advancement, grant funding and academic standing. But it means that if we really want a publishing revolution we might need a slightly more radical model, where funders require academics not simply to publish in journals offering open access options, but open publishing, where there is no (or minimal) immediate cost of access or publication. Such models are available, but I am not sure that we as an academic community are yet ready to give up on the current value system. So until we do so, it seems that a green option is a pragmatic and cost effective next step.
However, I think that despite the apparent conflict, it is likely most of us interested in research want a similar outcome, a sustainable publishing model that allows the timely disclosure of research at the lowest possible costs to the funders – often tax payers – and the users of research. The two camps differ, though, in how this aim might be achieved.
The heart of the disagreement lies in the merit of adoption of gold open access as part of a move to change the model of publishing. In this case, authors are required to pay a significant up-front access fee per article to allow all and sundry to read the papers. It is hard to provide an accurate estimate of the cost, but irrespective of the number, the science minister David Willetts is reported to have commented, "I think there's a massive net economic benefit here way beyond any £50m from the science budget."
Yet despite these bold words, I cannot see how the adoption of gold open access will accrue benefit to the UK economy. If that is a serious aspiration, then a serious discussion is needed on how preferential access can help British business and the British economy.
The benefits of moving to gold open access include the following: publishers will be in receipt of both access charges and subscription fees; UK researchers will be able to make available their work to anyone who wishes to read it immediately on publication; it will stimulate other countries to follow suit; the article is available in journal format which may make it easier to find through searching tools; it requires no substantial additional work on the part of the academic research community.
Those, like me, who question the adoption of the gold approach, funded by the taxpayer, generally favour the green approach in which the author is allowed to make a version of their paper available online after an embargo period.
The benefits of this approach are that publishers will continue to be in receipt of subscription charges; UK researchers will be able to make available their work to anyone who wishes to read it after an embargo period; and it will stimulate others countries to follow suit without additional access charges.
So the question remains, do we need to invest public funds into gold open access as a step towards achieving the overall goal of provision of a sustainable publishing model - or will green be more effective? My opinion is that at this stage, green offers a better option because it is likely to be lower cost to the funders of research.
The debate about academic publishing is incredibly important and of course, very little of this post addresses the real concerns about publishing in non-scientific areas which must be addressed. However, this current debate about gold versus green is really just the start:neither fully address the issues around disclosure of scientific research, and both options offer only an incremental change to the accessibility of research outcomes.
If we are to make research outcomes readily available in a timely fashion, then we will need to change the culture of academic publishing and disclosure. For example, much research never gets published because it is incomplete, or because the author does not get around to it, or editors and referees reject manuscripts which may then not be submitted or published elsewhere. Some would argue that such material has little value and so it does not matter if it is not published; I don't believe it is quite so clear cut.
These are all real barriers to accessibility of information that may be of value - and these barriers exist because where and how we publish underpins career advancement, grant funding and academic standing. But it means that if we really want a publishing revolution we might need a slightly more radical model, where funders require academics not simply to publish in journals offering open access options, but open publishing, where there is no (or minimal) immediate cost of access or publication. Such models are available, but I am not sure that we as an academic community are yet ready to give up on the current value system. So until we do so, it seems that a green option is a pragmatic and cost effective next step.
Thursday, 8 December 2011
Making a difference through Enterprise
At UCL we have just formally launched our enterprise strategy. Many think university enterprise refers simply to commercialisation of university activities for the purpose of making money. But enterprise is much more than that and plays a central role in the mission of our universities. Here are just three ways in which enterprise can help make a difference to the academic mission.
1. In teaching and learning - enterprise activities can enhance the learning experience for students and improve their chances of securing employment.
Work placements and industrially relevant projects can be used to enhance most academic programmes by providing a real life context for learning and for honing transferable skills such as presentation and problem solving.
2. In research - engagement with businesses is often essential to fulfill the ultimate objective of the research.
Sometimes a partnership is essential for the development of an invention or discovery into something of general use for society. An example is in pharmaceuticals where working in collaboration with a pharmaceutical company is almost certainly essential for developing a new medicine from a basic research discovery.
3. Society - enterprise can ensure that society benefits from academic activities
Universities are sources of new knowledge and talented people and both are necessary to sustain a knowledge-based economy. By effective use of enterprise activities we can enhance the capability of the graduate workforce and increase the number of graduate entrepreneurs. By encouraging effective collaboration with external organisations, in research, training or provision of facilities, we can enhance the global competitiveness of businesses located in the UK. This is essential for economic growth and sustainable prosperity.
In summary - university enterprise can and does enhance the core activities of teaching and research and can help maximise the societal benefit of academia. It can also generate significant new income, and of course we need that to continue to support students and sustain our research.
But universities are not about making money - they are about making a difference
Links
UCL Enterprise strategy: www.ucl.ac.uk/enterprise
1. In teaching and learning - enterprise activities can enhance the learning experience for students and improve their chances of securing employment.
Work placements and industrially relevant projects can be used to enhance most academic programmes by providing a real life context for learning and for honing transferable skills such as presentation and problem solving.
2. In research - engagement with businesses is often essential to fulfill the ultimate objective of the research.
Sometimes a partnership is essential for the development of an invention or discovery into something of general use for society. An example is in pharmaceuticals where working in collaboration with a pharmaceutical company is almost certainly essential for developing a new medicine from a basic research discovery.
3. Society - enterprise can ensure that society benefits from academic activities
Universities are sources of new knowledge and talented people and both are necessary to sustain a knowledge-based economy. By effective use of enterprise activities we can enhance the capability of the graduate workforce and increase the number of graduate entrepreneurs. By encouraging effective collaboration with external organisations, in research, training or provision of facilities, we can enhance the global competitiveness of businesses located in the UK. This is essential for economic growth and sustainable prosperity.
In summary - university enterprise can and does enhance the core activities of teaching and research and can help maximise the societal benefit of academia. It can also generate significant new income, and of course we need that to continue to support students and sustain our research.
But universities are not about making money - they are about making a difference
Links
UCL Enterprise strategy: www.ucl.ac.uk/enterprise
Saturday, 12 November 2011
Tech City and UCL
Tech City is an extraordinary phenomenon. Hundreds of new digital start-ups emerging in East London creating a dynamic spirit of entrepreneurialism and optimism. Its simply great stuff.
At UCL we have been delighted to be involved - why wouldn't we be? - we are close by. Our Institute of Ophthalmology is next door to Moorfields - right in the heart of this part of town. Our main campus in Gower Street is a ten-minute white knuckle ride on a BorisBike!
But aside from proximity, why should the Tech City community be interested in UCL?
We educate and train hundreds of scientists and engineers every year - people who can and do create new start-ups. We attract the very best people from around the world, which can help provide the talent needed for Tech City to thrive and grow.
We carry out ground breaking research in many relevant areas including engineering, physics, mathematics, computer science, etc. This so-called frontier research, is likely to be vital for the long term sustainability of Tech City.
As part of building those strong links, we have recently announced an unprecedented new Research and Innovation Centre in Future Cities with Imperial College and Cisco, to be based in Tech City. This collaborative research hub will serve as a magnet for high quality research talent and will create new ideas, new technologies and business models - in a market predicted to be worth trillions of dollars. We are going to work together to make sure Tech City grabs a large slice for the UK!
We have have made a commitment to support the development of 500 new businesses from the UCL community over the next five years. Many will be tech businesses and I'm sure many will be based in Tech City.
Much is made of comparisons between Tech City and other clusters. We know there are things to be learnt from great places like Silicon Valley, but the Tech City phenomenon is different. So rather than worry too much about comparisons, I'd rather focus attention on helping people in Tech City to get on with it - its tough enough for spirited first time entrepreneurs who need encouragement and practical help.
So how can we improve the chances for growth and sustainability for Tech City? We can all help - government, universities, large corporations, investors & serial entrepreneurs - working together to remove barriers and provide support. We at UCL provide significant levels of training and support for London's entrepreneurs - see the links below for details. We are also committed to developing new partnerships in order to stimulate jobs, growth and prosperity for the UK.
Stephen Caddick
Vice Provost
UCL
Links
Training and support for entrepreneurs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8881237/David-Cameron-hails-success-of-Londons-Tech-City.html
UCL Departments and Centres
Computer Science - www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/
Centre for Spatial Analysis (CASA) - www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/casa
Slade Centre for Electronic Media in Fine Art - www.ucl.ac.uk/slade/scemfa
UCL Centre for Human Computer Interactions - www.ucl.ac.uk/uclic/
UCL Centre for Digital Humanities - www.ucl.ac.uk/dh/
UCL Research
UCL research database - https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/research
London 2062 commission - www.ucl.ac.uk/london-2062/
Grand Challenges - www.ucl.ac.uk/grand-challenges/
Friday, 14 October 2011
What do businesses need from universities?
I am currently preparing some material for a review on University-Business interactions and I would like to gather as much opinion as possible from you, the business community. I would be very grateful if you can answer five questions which will help me and others understand what businesses really need from universities and how if necessary we can make some positive changes?
Five questions for businesses - how can universities help you?
1. What is the most valuable form of contact that you have with universities?
(e.g. access to trained staff, interns / placement students, access to facilities, staff training / CPD, consultants, research collaboration, access to IP etc...)
2. What can universities do to make themselves more visible / accessible to business?
3. What would increase your level of engagement with universities?
4. What barriers have you encountered in accessing or working with universities?
5. What single action could a university take that would have an immediate positive benefit to your business?
Please feel free to comment below the piece - or by email to caddick.wilson.review@gmail.com
Many thanks in advance for your help.
Steve
Friday, 7 October 2011
Contribute to the Wilson Review on Business-University Collaboration
Those of you interested in Higher Education will have read the coalition government's white paper published earlier this year. One recommendation identifies a need for a review on university-business collaboration “We also want our universities to look again at how they work with business across their teaching and research activities, to promote better teaching, employer sponsorship, innovation and enterprise. We have asked Professor Sir Tim Wilson, former vice-chancellor of the University of Hertfordshire, to undertake a review into how we make the UK the best place in the world for university-industry collaboration.” White Paper: Putting Students at the heart of higher education. June 2011
Tim has asked me to be one of the contributors to the section "Exploiting the research/innovation capability of business and universities through collaboration" and I am seeking evidence & comment on the items below.
I hope that many will respond to these comments and I'm happy to receive other comments by email to caddick.wilson.review@gmail.com. It will be most helpful if there is clear evidence (data and case studies) to support opinion - weblinks to material are very welcome.
I apologise in advance that I will not be able to reply - but I promise to read and consider as much material as possible. If you'd like to respond directly to Tim then you can do so via 2011wilson.review@gmail.com.
Many thanks in advance for your help.
Stephen Caddick
Exploiting the research/innovation capability of business and universities through collaboration
1. UK track record on commercialisation of research
This is an area in which there has been considerable development and we can identify some major UK successes, especially spin-outs.
But are we ambitious enough?
How can we make it easier for academic staff and students to spin-out companies?
Under what circumstances is the licensing model more effective for commercialisation than setting up a spin-out company?
What impact does this commercialisation activity have on the UK economy in terms of jobs and growth?
How might we promote greater collaboration between entrepreneurial academics; between academics and students, and between university communities and external organisations?
2. Impact of impact
The word impact elicits varying responses in academia and the word is now largely interpreted as meaning relevance of research to non-academic activities.
Have the (REF, RCUK) impact agendas changed behaviour within Universities?
Have impact policies had any positive or negative affect on universities - business interactions?
3. Volume and breadth of business sponsored research
There is still a perception that some parts of UK academia could be more open to business and that universities are sometimes difficult to navigate / access.
There is also evidence that UK universities receive a smaller proportion of research income from non governmental sources than in other countries.
Are there new ways in which UK academia can make a more immediate contribution to the growth agenda?
Are there significant barriers to engagement between universities and business and if so what can be done to remove these?
Are there examples of particularly good practices and processes that are effective in facilitating such collaboration?
What incentives are there for collaborative working?
What additional incentives would make a difference?
4. Networks and mechanisms which facilitate business: university collaborations
One of the critical elements of developing collaborations and partnerships is the creation of conditions to allow people to interact and exchange ideas and there are a number of networks available.
Do we have enough of the right kinds of networks for promoting university-business collaborations?
What are the most effective networks and how to we measure their success?
How much do formal mechanisms such as KTP and CASE studentships help with university-business interactions?
What are the most valuable opportunities for collaboration between universities and business (research, contracts, consultancy, CPD, training etc.)?
5. Employability skills in research students
There has been a lot of work done to improve the research student experience and with the advent of doctoral training programmes there are many more opportunities to enhance education, training and skills development.
To what extent do 4-year doctoral programmes include activities that are proven to enhance the employability of students?
Do we do enough to raise the expectations of PhD students to work outside of their specific areas of study?
What employment barriers exist for those who get a PhD?
Can and should we do more to encourage postgraduate students to become entrepreneurs?
Are there opportunities to develop more radical doctoral programmes to encourage career diversity?
Many postgraduate students carry out further research at postdoctoral level.
To what extent do postdoctoral fellowship programmes contain more general employability skills?
Are there ways in which structured postdoctoral fellowship programmes could help promote university:business collaboration?
Are postdoctoral fellows more or less employable outside of their area of academic research?
Do businesses value industrial postdoctoral programmes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Material progress on Drug Resistant Infections
The O’Neill Review on AntiMicrobial Resistance has led to new initiatives on the development of new diagnostics and drugs along with ...
-
Those of you interested in Higher Education will have read the coalition government's white paper published earlier this year. One recom...
-
I first met Harry in summer of 1993 - when my research group visited the Department of Chemistry (MOLS) at Sussex in advance of our reloc...
-
David Cameron has come in for some criticism of his idea of a Big Society. Detractors claim that the concept lacks detail and is a tactic ...