Our response to this ESRC consultation highlights issues with UK PhD delivery, including short length, lack of support, limited funding and limited opportunities for growth and progression. It also discusses the need to broaden routes into and out of PhDs beyond conventional academic pathways, and to improve diversity and inclusion.
We argue for a broader understanding and subsequent assessment of knowledge exchange and collaboration. We also call for more attention to relative opportunities when determining clustering.
We reaffirm our commitment to a transition towards a sustainable open science/research ecosystem and offer reflections on the various open access models and business plans discussed in the consultation document.
We recommend the inclusion of subject bodies as key information providers and highlight the Society's provision of subject choice advice.
In our response regarding REF, we request transparency and clarity in methods and approach, and express concerns about administrative burden and UoA / HESA mapping
Our response highlights the need to recognise and accommodate interdisciplinarity, and need for continuity from REF 2014.
Our response welcomes voluntary frameworks, and advocates for greater recognition of the diversity of data types and research practices.
Our invited response requests that the Earth Sciences, Environmental Sciences and Environmental Studies statement explicitly acknowledge subject overlap with geography.
Our response evaluates the existing network, and advocates for fieldwork and interdisciplinarity in future developments. We also highlight a lack of flexibility in 1+3 studentships.
Our invited response encourages the ESRC to support interdisciplinary and multi-scalar research, and invest in a spatial (geographical) focus.
Our invited response to the benchmark statement for geography recommends greater emphasis on quantitative methods and GIS, and recognition of overlap with the Earth Sciences, Environmental Sciences and Environmental Studies benchmark statement.
We argue the proposals penalise geography' success; that teaching costs, particularly from fieldwork, have been underestimated; and that HEFCE's approach rewards higher-fee institutions.
Our response reiterates the position that metrics cannot adequately capture originality, significance and rigour of academic outputs
We express concerns over proposed embargo periods, and argue for a review of HEFCE policy on OA to identify and mitigate any emerging negative consequences.
Our reponse argues for clearer wording of criteria, point-of-publication access to outputs, and distinct HEFCE policy on embargoes and licensing.
Our response expresses concern that there is insufficient evidence that promoting Gold OA will meet sustainability, access and excellence criteria.
A consultation on the proposed merged of BAS and NOC. Our response says there is insufficient evidence to support merging the centres
Our response to the HEFCE consultation on REF2014 criteria and methods calls for greater consistency across main panel criteria and methods, and highlights omissions in descriptors for geography.
Our response to HEFCE's consultation on proposed changes allocation methods for the research degree programme supervision fund welcomes increased funding and encourages the linkage of funding with research quality.
Our response to ESRC proposals for managing research funding demand calls for a system based on individual researchers rather than institutional quotas or penalties.
Our response argues for an international and multiscalar focus in the new strategic priorities.
We convey community comments, and emphasise that geography must be recognised and assessed as a single unit, but in a way that accounts for the nature of the discipline
In our response to the programme of learning aspect of the Rose Review, we call for greater emphasis on spatial understanding, and a closer balance between human and physical geography.
Our response summarises and highlights community views on the proposals for REF, conveying support for dual funding, non-STEM mode of assessment, and discipline-based peer-review. This response refers to what ultimately became REF2014.
Our response emphasises the need to support hydrology/water science, responsive mode research and international collaboration. It also requests clarity around how "environmental" themes will be integrated in projects.
Our response stresses the importance to the social sciences of investment and development towards data collection, management and analysis facilities.
Our response calls for AHRC recognition of geography in interdisciplinary or non-humanities units, and evaluates how several funding proposals might affect geography researchers
Our response evaluates the 1+3 model in general, and highlights inflexible quota allocations and limited options for quantitative training as discipline-specific issues.
By placing a booking, you are permitting us to store and use your (and any other attendees) details in order to fulfil the booking.
We will not use your details for marketing purposes without your explicit consent.
You must be a member holding a valid Society membership to view the content you are trying to access. Please login to continue.
Join us today, Society membership is open to anyone with a passion for geography
Cookies on the RGS website