Notices
|
Notices |
|
Residential
Training Course for PhD Students in Economic and Social History With generous support from the ESRC, the Economic History Society offers 12 funded places on an intensive residential course designed to raise the quality and analytical rigour of doctoral dissertations in economic and social history; improve the communication skills of postgraduates; widen their approach to their subjects; and encourage them to form networks with established scholars and fellow students in their areas of expertise. The course is open to 12 graduate students who are currently engaged in work on a doctoral thesis on any topic in economic and social history, whether the period be modern, early modern, or medieval. Preference will be given to students who will be in their 2nd or 3rd year of study in December 2002. The Society expects to recruit five academics (with recognised expertise in the field) to act as tutors on the course. Each student will: · provide a 1,000 word synopsis of his/her thesis; Apart from the plenary sessions, there will be workshops dealing with research methods and a number of opportunities for informal discussion between participants as all are expected to be resident for the full duration of the course, between Thursday evening, 28 November to the lunch-time of Sunday, 1 December 2002. Student questionnaires will be circulated at the end of the course for evaluation, reflection, and a report to the ESRC. The venue is Chancellors, the Residential Conference Centre of the University of Manchester, Fallowfield, Manchester. Students are expected to apply to their departments (in the first instance) for their travel costs. Other costs will be met by the Society. An application form can be downloaded from the Society's website
- www.ehs.org.uk/appform.htm
- or is available from: Tel: 0141 330 4662 The deadline for applications is 5 July 2002.
19 October 2001 Minutes of a meeting with representatives of: Association of Business Historians
In the unavoidable absence of Professor Pat Hudson (President, Economic History Society), Professor Rick Trainor (Honorary Secretary, Economic History Society) chaired the meeting. The ESRC were thanked for their hospitality in hosting the meeting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
6 February 2002 The British Academy Minutes of a meeting with representatives of: Arts and Humanities Research Board
Attending: Maureen Galbraith (EHS) Copies of the AHRB Annual Report 2000/2001 were tabled. 1. Purpose of this and future meetings He advised that the AHRB are currently undertaking a review, including liaison with other bodies. Meetings held this year had been in the form of research strategy seminars organised around themes - which had been both successful and over-subscribed. It is proposed that this model will be used next year. No formal structure yet exists for meeting with subject associations. The AHRB is considering holding a series of meetings to which key individuals of subject associations would be invited; this may replace the EHS/SHS liaison meeting. Agenda items would be invited. The societies would be advised of any developments. [Action: AHRB]
In an effort to allay the concerns of the Social History Society at the perceived dominance on panels of representatives from the 'golden academic triangle', Professor Eastwood confirmed that the procedure in identifying panellists is to ensure that they would enjoy the confidence of the academic community. The panel is then considered for balance in terms of: gender, geographic location and types of institution within the system. Joy Whyte (Advanced Research Team Leader: Research Grants [over £5,000], Changing Places and Resource Enhancement Schemes; and liaison with Arts & Humanities Data Service) spoke in detail about the application process, from consideration by the panel to final outcome, and confirmed that decisions made are very much informed by the report of referees. Those A-graded applications and A-minus applications not funded are encouraged to re-apply. Professor Johnson expressed concern at the impact on applicants of having an A-graded application rejected and advised that the ESRC was reviewing the grading of applications, with a view to not grading as 'A' those which were not funded. Professor Eastwood confirmed that the AHRB would, in its review, consider the practice of other research funding bodies.
The higher success rate (50%) of research leave applications over research grant applications (20%) was noted. The societies welcomed the AHRB policy decision to try to achieve a high success for research leave, particularly as the research leave scheme is not replicated by any other funding body. Professor Eastwood confirmed that, while economic and social historians are not disadvantaged, the AHRB is uneasy when an application is received for AHRB funding to complete an ESRC project. He further confirmed that the research leave scheme was not biased towards more established academic staff; a significant proportion is awarded to assist in the completion of first monographs. Professor Trainor suggested that - in an effort to disaggregate the figures thematically by subject, time period etc. - a tear-off portion, to be completed by applicants, might be added to application forms. Professor Eastwood welcomed input from the societies on what a coding structure might look like. [Action: EHS/SHS] It was noted that the success rate of Panel 4 (Medieval and Modern History) in the Postgraduate Programme had increased from the 1998 figure of 28-29% to 36-37%. The societies welcomed the substantial historical content of at least two of the Research Centres.
Professor Eastwood stated that this was not AHRB policy and that the budget projections were in process of recalculation. However, projections were based upon complex profiles with some projects lasting five years. This could bias the appearance of such accounts and the balance between centres and other spending. For example, if existing commitments were taken into account, the number of centres actually decreases.
The group noted the circulated publicity, published in the Economic History Society newsletter, about the Innovation Awards Scheme and Resource Enhancement Awards.
Discussion centred on the concerns of the societies with respect to the 1+3 model of the ESRC and the related rise of prescriptive training guidelines. Whilst the consultation document does not suggest that the AHRB is following this route there was concern about the distinct drift in that direction and the societies were concerned to state their belief that, contrary to some reports, most economic and social historians were not happy with the training guidelines - in particular the 1+3 structure and the prescriptive nature of the generic element in the Guidelines - or their impact upon the quality of research training. David Eastwood advised that HEFCE's views will be important, particularly because HEFCE seemed to be moving towards concentrating postgraduate research in a select tier of HEIs. It was also important that the AHRB had a clear view of what best practice research training comprised. He reported that the AHRB was exploring the possibility of providing training bursaries for individual students and attaching these to research grants. The bursaries could pay for training courses at any institution providing suitable training. Or they could be used to pay for training courses provided by learned societies (such as that run annually by the Economic History Society and part financed by the ESRC). The consultation document made clear that the AHRB was out of line compared with Research Councils, with two thirds of awards made for courses below doctoral level (though it is nearer 50/50 for history). The current plan was to move to greater provision of PhD grants at the expense of some Masters and diploma funding. The societies emphasised their concern that the pressure to complete PhDs had detracted from the intellectual breadth of the qualification. Professor Eastwood shared these concerns and speculated about an American-style resolution to the problem in which a sub set of students proposing to follow an academic career might move into partnerships with institutions to buy extra time in return for teaching which would provide further career specific training and give doctoral students a greater range. Dr Rowbotham emphasised the difficulties students faced in getting funding to attend conferences and Professor Eastwood undertook to bring this up at the UK graduate education meeting on 14th February. Judgement of Masters and PhD applications is currently based on the quality of the project set out and the institutional support (as well as references pertaining to the quality of the student).
Professor Hudson highlighted a particular case where there appeared to be discrepancies between the referees' report and the grade awarded by the AHRB. Joy Whyte confirmed that the AHRB would try to address the problem with this year's applications. This ties in with the AHRB review of the peer review mechanism. There was clear need for improved guidance on the criteria of evaluation and what the different grades mean.
Professor Hudson referred to the joint AHRB-ESRC statement - which was viewed as a major improvement over earlier AHRB statements. However, while welcoming the very good generic points, she found the history section less helpful. It was felt that, due to the changing nature of the field, there is a danger of good-quality innovative applications not finding a home. Professor Eastwood stated that the problem would be partly ameliorated by having more joint programmes but the difficulties raised by change and evolution within disciplines needed to be monitored and addressed. He appreciated that the changing nature of economic and social history might well result in more applications to the AHRB at the expense of applications to the ESRC and that the ESRC might cut the postgraduate allocation to economic and social history in response to this. It was agreed that Joy Whyte would, with her opposite number at the ESRC, look at the pattern of applications, as well as what is being funded. [Action: Joy Whyte] The societies confirmed that they would very much like to be part of any consultation exercise to develop new possible collaborations.
10.2 It was noted that the review of the AHRB would continue until 31 March and it was likely that the AHRB would become the AHRC. 10.3 The societies thanked Professor Eastwood and his colleagues for hosting an informative, helpful meeting. The societies wished Professor Eastwood well in his new role as Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Aims | The Officers | Editors | Membership | Publications | Grants and Awards | Conferences |
Schools and Colleges Committee | Women's
Committee | Directory of Members | Notices
| Links |
Home