June 2005/24 (web only)
Policy development
Report of advisory group

This report is for information

---

Strategically important and vulnerable subjects

Final report of the advisory group

This report sets out the advice of the HEFCE Chief Executive's Strategically Important Subjects Advisory Group, chaired by Sir Gareth Roberts. It considers definitions of strategically important and vulnerable subjects in higher education, and principles to focus any further intervention. It informed HEFCE's subsequent advice to the Secretary of State.

---

Summary (read on-line)

---

---

Summary

1.    This report sets out the advice of the HEFCE Chief Executive's Strategically Important Subjects Advisory Group, which was delivered in May 2005. This group considered what principles should be used to define strategically important and vulnerable subjects in higher education (HE). They then set out principles to focus any further intervention, usually by the Council in partnership with others, which might be required to support such subjects. In drawing up their advice, the group took into account the wide range of existing activity to support subjects of strategic importance, as well as (often encouraging) evidence on supply and demand.

2.    In summary, the group advises that:

1. We have a healthy and vibrant higher education system in this country. As the Science and Technology Select Committee has stated, it would be exaggerating to say that university science departments are in crisis. Nevertheless, there are risks and opportunities in the future that need a response. But that response must be proportionate, targeted and effective. The dynamism of the English HE sector is a great strength, and interventions should, as a rule, be kept to a minimum.

2. Attention should be focused on subjects which are both strategically important and vulnerable. Vulnerability may be measured by a mismatch between supply and demand, or by a concentration of the subject in institutions which may be vulnerable to change (such as monotechnics). Departmental closures do not of themselves mean vulnerability.

3. HEFCE should guard against an overly interventionist role in the market. The Council should be wary of preventing the natural development of disciplines or infringing institutional autonomy or academic freedom. Second-guessing the market may ultimately reduce the dynamism of the English HE sector.

4. However, HEFCE is able to take an overall view of the system and identify where the aggregate individual interests of higher education institutions do not match the national or regional interest. There is, therefore, a range of approaches which HEFCE may choose according to the nature of the mismatch between supply and demand for each subject. These need to be deployed within a clear framework and only where there is evidence to warrant intervention. The key principles of such a framework should be:

   • a clear evidence base
   • wherever possible to support a market-led solution
   • to look at issues holistically and ensure that problems of demand are not addressed with supply solutions (and vice versa)
   • to seek wherever possible to work in partnership with all those with an interest in protecting strategic and vulnerable subjects
   • to intervene only where we have a clear understanding of the nature of the problem, where it is located and where HEFCE intervention is appropriate.
      

5. It is vital to recognise the very large number of activities already being undertaken to support subjects of strategic importance, particularly with reference to raising demand and increasing specific research capacity. HEFCE will need to target its resources carefully, and avoid raising expectations inappropriately, particularly as additional funding is unlikely to be available.

6. Having said that, there is a range of additional interventions that HEFCE could consider taking forward on a case by case basis, following full consultation with the relevant stakeholders. This should be considered as phase two of this project, and should include:

   • taking a more proactive change management role, for example, encouraging collaboration; expecting early conversations with HEFCE where strategic and vulnerable subjects are at risk, which may enable the transfer of provision; ensuring that one or more national centres remain for certain strategically important and vulnerable subjects where national capacity is deemed necessary; enabling reviews of the sector in a very small number of subjects
   • continuing and enhancing its efforts to support others who are trying to increase informed demand from potential students
   • continuing and enhancing its efforts to ensure that employer demand is appropriately fed into the system, particularly through Sector Skills Councils and Regional Development Agencies.
      

7. HEFCE cannot and should not attempt to prescribe where subjects should be provided, or to interfere in proper institutional decisions about their strategic direction.