King's College London (KQC) newsletter
RESEARCH AND EXPERTISE IN KING'S COLLEGE - IS THERE ANY? Fir t anal i of nearly 350 return to the College' urvey of Re earch and Expertise carried out among t all members of the academic and re earch staff, both here and at the Medical School, during last term - uggests very trongly that the answer to that question' a re ounding 'Yes'!
Cynics and the world-weary might have argued that completing the survey form was a chore they could well do without. s many member of taff have not 0 far got round to the form, the picture emerging is thus far partial: but it i already repre entative, already u eful - and very revealing,
ing, from both governmental and non-governmental sources, depends upon the standard of current re earch and how far- ighted we how our elve to be in identifying future research potential. We mu t have readily available accurate and detailed information about what we are doing now and what we intend for the future.'
The urvey wa divided, like Gaul, into three parts: Biographical Data, Research Data, and Media Data. (On second thoughts, not much like Gaul.) Under Section 3, Media Data, respondents were asked uch impertinent questions as 'Have you ever appeared on radio or television-' 'Do you have any existing contacts with members of the press?' (never mind about the Official Secrets Act) and 'Are you willing to be in luded on the College List of expert ?'.
This Section was al 0 designed to reveal the extent of existing links with industry, government, and funding quango (such as the Re earch Council), 0 that future approache to these bodies can become more co-ordinated and less hapha.t.ard.
So: what have been the re ult 0 far? Has the Survey been 'a uccess'? Was your effort worthwhile? Wha t happens next? The Survey was a fairly lengthy and complex que tionnaire, and to notch up an initial respon e rate of around 50% must be accounted at least moderately suc e sful, especially in e the College Survey competed with a number of similar, parallel enterpri es for the time and attention of taff. The po se of que tionnaires from various ource now going the round wa indeed commented upon, wrily, by several responden ts' and consumer re Istance can be put down, in part at any rate, to 'que tionnaire fatigue'. However the relative success of the Survey has inevitably created relati e difficulty - the difficulty of handhng, organi ing and making proper sense of 0 large a body of information. This information can be roughly divided into two main categories: the factual and the speculative or opinioned (using the term neutrally). continued overleaf.
The reason behind these egregious enquirie is quite simple: informed pres and media coverage j a very important mean of keeping the College in the public eye. With the details provided by respondent to this part of the Survey. the Information Office is creating a 'U t of Expert' which will be made available to the relevant media for use a and when. Someone to talk cri ply and authoritively for _0 econd on arms control and defence strategie'? othing impler. quick over-view of the coming ecologi al crisis (there's always one of those)? Easy. eed a biochemist with song-writmg credits to pep 0 proup a popular science programme? blem! Section 2, Re earch Data, was designed to elicit some more systematic information about what research is being carried out by whom and where in the College. As the Principal put it in his covering letter to staff participating in the Survey: 'A substantial and growing part of our fund-
George Walden, the junior m inister responsible [or higher education, encounters an A UT demonstration on his way into the College to visit the Physics Department. See p.