| any national university system is seldom recognised. Since research is part of the job of a university teacher, the more staff in a subject, the more research. Thus decisions about relative student numbers in different disciplines directly influence the weighting of the university research effort. How these decisions about student numbers are made varies. But I have never heard the volume of research output mentioned as a criterion. What determines the choice of research activity by university teachers, once appointed? I suggest three main sets of factors. First, the internal structure of knowledge in their disciplines, and their own personal and social position within it. Secondly, current intellectual technical or social questions outside the universities; for example, the growth of 'development studies' to replace 'colonial studies', or transplant surgery. Thirdly, the availability of funds, or concrete support and rewards from government, industry or foundations. Some research springs solely from the researchers themselves; some of this often turns out to be work of the greatest significance and practical consequences But inevitably it is those who control resources who make the greatest impact on the direction of costly research, and governments are increasingly turning to planned 'science policies'. One major instrument for supporting research in Britain has been the system of Research Councils, of which there are five: The Medical Research Council (1913) The Agricultural Research Council (1931) The Science Research Council (1965) The Natural Environment Research Council (1965) The Social Science Research Council (1965) All five Councils—recently brought under a single Board to co-ordinate their policies— support research in universities and other institutions by grants, and give training awards to graduate students for advanced courses and for research training to doctoral level. They are also empowered to establish research units in universities, to support |
| independent institutions, and to join in international research projects. The aim of these Councils is primarily to support research which universities invent, and also to encourage research in directions seen by the government or by the Councils themselves as 'strategically' desirable. But they do not normally support research directly related to the work of particular Ministries. The vast differences in research costs between academic subjects is well illustrated by the following table: Research Council Estimate |
| ( £ millions) |
| Science Research Council | 83 7 |
| Social Science Research Council | 6.7 |
| Natural Environment Research Council | 20.5 |
| Medical Research Council | 31.5 |
| Agricultural Research Council | 29 + 6.5 |
| Source: The Research Councils (pamphlet) (1975). pp. 7, 11, 16, 19, 29. Research in Humanities is supported only through Universities own funds, and by grants for graduate student training run directly by the Department of Education and Science. Social Science is better off, with a budget of its own. The other four Councils, all of which support some scientific and technological research, are on an altogether different scale; the SRC spends a sum almost equal to one sixth of the whole national universities budget. Even within science, the differences in financial scale of operations is very large, as we see from the internal organisation of the SRC, which has four administrative divisions, one for astronomy, one for nuclear physics, one for engineering, and one for the rest of physics and all the other natural science put together. Every government department is also responsible for |
| commissioning research of direct practical relevance to its own operations, and several of them have what are now called 'in house' research sections, establishments or units. They also commission research and fund research units in universities in specific areas or on specific themes. To sum up, then, we have some 35,000 university teachers, all of whom in theory should do research, almost all of whom do a little, and a minority of whom do a lot. Where necessary, government supports the spontaneous ideas of the academics; and at the same time funds research areas which it believes to be relevant to national needs and interests. The total national expenditure on research and development in 1974/5 was 983 million, of which some 118 million was spent on research conducted in or through universities. Because of the very large sums involved, the concern of governments to control expenditure and ensure benefit for cost has been increasing, and is likely to go on increasing. The means of control have evolved, and are still evolving, fairly slowly; on the whole they are as efficient as is realistic. Academics would resist more central control; but it is plausibly argued that British Governments have been too complacent, too uninterested, too permissive and insufficiently encouraging to science and technology for perhaps a hundred years. THEMES FROM THE PRE-CONFERENCE TOUR OF THE REGIONAL COUNTRIES During my lightning visit, only five days in each of the three CENTO countries, several themes repeatedly came up in conversations I had with officials, university heads and academic staff. What I have to say is a conflation of these talks. Plainly, I have selected consciously and unconsciously; but what I am saying in general terms is what people first said to me, often quite specifically. The university traditions in the three countries are very different; and so is the national income per capita. Some of the problems I mention therefore apply more to one country than another. In particular, in Iran, cash resources are no longer short, and other problems thus become clearer and more pressing. My generalisations may appear to ignore the |
| many striking exceptions in all three countries. But listing the obstacles highlights those who have achieved important research results in spite of them. The universities and university institutions of the three countries were set up in the first place to import and transmit the new, at that time foreign, technical knowledge; that is, to modernise the knowledge available to the national ruling classes. They thought of themselves as teaching institutions, and did not build in research as a normal occupational requirement. In any case the first teachers had the colossal task of importing new knowledge and new modes of thinking, and they were engaged in translating, in writing text books in their own languages, and in writing commentaries and expositions of work going on abroad. More than once I was told that the basic problem is to persuade staff to think in terms of research; the commitment of all university staff to serious research is a relatively new concept, by no means yet fully established. I was told of many obstacles. Support facilities, libraries, equipment, supplies of materials, funds to cover expenses, are seldom adequate or readily available. Numerous other calls on teachers time prevent the necessary continuity of concentration. Younger teachers define success in terms of moving out of the university into the more powerful and practical world of politics or administration; and correspondingly, colleagues do not create the informal pressures on each other to aspire to academic distinction through publication. Those outside the universities, in government and private industry, take their practical problems to international or foreign experts, neglecting the potential of their own universities. All these points are familiar, though no one person mentioned them all. To list them is a single list makes clear how formidable is the battery of obstacles to be faced. The weakness of research support is a matter of buildings, supplies of materials, library facilities, tools and equipment, secretarial help, technicians and so forth. But I also heard complaints that staff returning from foreign universities are |