Review of Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council’s National Awards Scheme

Background

The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) commissioned People Science & Policy Ltd (PSP) to undertake a review of its National Awards Scheme (NAS) in the autumn of 2002. The role of the NAS scheme was to:

  • encourage young people to consider a scientific career
  • ensure UK tax payers have an appreciation of the work they are funding
  • continue the supply of highly qualified young researchers
  • ensure that the UK is recognised as a leading nation in science and technology

Within the terms of this review, PPARC provided explicit guidance that some sort of small award scheme would continue to operate regardless of any possible changes to the NAS. Thus we believed that it was crucial to consider the role played by the Small Awards Scheme (SAS) in meeting PPARC’s Science and Society objectives in order to establish whether or not there was a continuing role for the NAS or some other large award scheme. The report was underpinned by:

  • in-depth case studies of six completed NAS projects
  • shorter studies of the remaining NAS projects
  • six case studies of SAS projects supported in the Autumn 2001 awards round
  • the paperwork at PPARC relating to the NAS and the SAS, linked to an analysis of PPARC’s research funding portfolio

Principal Findings

Both the SAS and the NAS contribute to PPARC’s Science and Society objectives. However, neither contributes to all of the objectives and even taken together, they do not contribute to all of the objectives. Therefore either PPARC needs to retain other activities to ensure that all the objectives are being met, or it needs to substantially amend the award schemes.

PPARC intends to retain other activities such as press office work, training in media and more general communication skills, the “Frontiers” magazine and an annual meeting for those interested in science communication. It also provides resources through two other mechanisms, the legal framework for spending up to 1% of scientific research grant money on public awareness and occasional major investments, of the order of £100,000-£600,000 for specific communication activities. Given these ongoing activities, the question that needs to be addressed is; do the award schemes, particularly the NAS, offer something unique that the other mechanisms do not?

The focus on drawing practising researchers into communication activities differentiates the award schemes from other PPARC activities. The SAS is a valuable training ground for scientists starting out in communication work, offering practical opportunities that could not be experienced on training courses. It also provides access to funds for researchers who may not control a research grant, who are therefore unable to take advantage of using the 1% of grant to fund communication work. We have found the SAS to be a valued tool that makes a significant contribution to PPARC’s objectives. It could be improved by the introduction of relatively simple processes that would enable the sharing of learning and best practice more effectively.

The NAS as currently configured has systemic weaknesses. There is too little linkage between the Science and Society objectives and the scheme selection criteria, which in turn are vague and provide inadequate guidance to applicants. The scheme also has weaknesses in terms of data collection and analysis, meaning that it is difficult to assess what has been delivered and to whom.

However, the NAS provides the opportunity for scientists and professionals, whether in education, communication, design or marketing, to work together. It is also a mechanism available to the PPARC community, rather than the Council, that allows the employment of staff with specific responsibility to drive a project forward. This enables researchers to become involved in more demanding and far-reaching activities, without neglecting their core function, the research.

Main Recommendations

We have recommended that there is an addition to the Science and Society objectives, which is:

  • To encourage PPARC-funded scientists to communicate their research to a wider audience and to debate issues with non-specialists

In light of this we have recommended that the SAS should be retained, but that various actions should be taken by PPARC to improve the way that data and learning is captured and disseminated.

We have also recommended that a large award scheme be retained, but that it should operate in a far more focused fashion, with only one award per year. PPARC should provide clearer guidance to applicants, possibly using a “commissioning” mode to specify particular outputs that are required or audiences to be targeted, leaving applicants to develop professional ways of providing these outputs using skills that are available amongst research groups and other specialist partners.

Finally, we have recommended that a third level of award, a development award, be introduced to enable a wider range of projects to be undertaken.

In all instances we have recommended that the processes associated with project reporting and the sharing of data and learning be developed to ensure that the award schemes start to provide a repository of knowledge that is available to all within the PPARC community to improve communication work.