www.chuukaku.com

It seemed inevitable that the credit crunch would crop up at some point during the conference – it seems to be everywhere at the moment – and Sir Drummond Bone launched straight in. He predicted less funding in the pot, and the responses research libraries would have to make to this, such as finding funding elsewhere. In what might have been good news for the majority he predicted that major financial changes wouldn’t hit until 2010, although as I’ll be launching myself at the job market in late 2009 it could have been better news for me!

What hadn’t really entered my radar is what a big effect small changes in government have on funding research. Apparently Gordon Brown was a big supporter of research funding as chancellor, and his move to PM may not be great news for funding. Less surprisingly, a complete government change is likely to make waves. The Conservatives are apparently enthusiastic about evidence-based practice, but whether this would translate to cash flow is debatable. I won’t be voting based upon these considerations, but it was interesting to think about the impact of the political climate on funding priorities at a range of different levels.

The big issue for RLUK and funding was, however, the move from the RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) to the REF (Research Excellence Framework). As a PhD student I was highly aware of the effect of the RAE on departments. This was notable among my graduating peers looking for employment in university departments, and the emphasis placed on publications in staff recruitment as the 2008 RAE approached. The REF is planned to have a major bibliometric component to it: using staff publication citations to assess quality. On the one hand removing the administrative burden of the RAE on higher education sounds promising. On the other, part of me baulks at the idea of assessing departments in this way, particularly as it has not yet been decided whether staff can take their publications with them when they move jobs, which would preserve the same job market issues.

Stephen Pinfield’s comments about the REF, and its trial at the University of Nottingham were particularly relevant to me, as I was both PhD student and library assistant at Nottingham, and know the organisation well. In addition, Alison Weightman’s presentation on internal peer review for developing research quality at Cardiff University was also intriguing. While I was a PhD student informal peer review – commenting on work and reading through papers – was a common process among students and some staff. However, it would certainly be beneficial to officially recognise these efforts. The idea of the library / information service acting as a facilitator or this process also appealed to me: the potential for a well thought-out and centrally coordinated peer review process to encourage interdisciplinary research seemed high. As Alison Weightman pointed out, better publications are possible with internal peer review, better publications lead to more funding in a bibliometric model, and this is a great example of how the library can work together with researchers for the good of the institution as a whole.

As well as collaborating with researchers, however, the library might also need to procure more funding for their own work. One particular need for funding for libraries explored during the conference was for the digitisation of special collections. Presenters discussed ways in which the library could partner with institutions like JISC or corporate partners such as Google to support digitisation projects, as I will discuss on the next entry, on digitisation.