Search results

The social science research community in higher education in the United Kingdom constitutes the largest group of staff covered by any of the six research councils. Over 25% of the people entered in the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) had a social science base. This chapter examines the way the pattern of social science research in the UK has been affected by, mainly, the RAE, the interpretations and strategic implementations that flow from it, and the funding allocations it informs. It draws on my own previous work, and that of others across a range of social science disciplines, as well as a small survey of active researchers conducted in late 2004/early 2005 as processes were set in train for the 2008 exercise. The critique of a process based mainly on peer review provides food for thought for those in Australia, where a research quality assessment exercise is in prospect. Paradoxically, the UK may be moving, after 2008, to an approach close to the one being abandoned in Australia.

A citation study of the 692 staff that makes up unit of assessment 58 (archaeology), in the 2001 UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) was undertaken. Unlike earlier studies, which were obliged to make assumptions on who and what had been submitted for assessment, these were, for the first time available from the RAE Web site. This study, therefore, used the specific submission details of authors and their publications. Using the Spearman rank‐order correlation coefficient, all results showed high statistically significant correlation between the RAE result and citation counts. The results were significant at 0.01 per cent. The findings confirm earlier studies. Given the comparative cost and ease of citation analysis, it is recommended that, correctly applied, it should be the initial tool of assessment for the RAE. Panel members would then exercise their judgement and skill to confirm final rankings.

This paper aims to examine how Hong Kong universities have responded to a newly included assessment element of socio-economic impact in a government-implemented research evaluation system – Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2020 – within the context of tightening audits and forceful knowledge economy objectives.

This paper reports an institutional case study of the institutional-level response to the RAE 2020 impact requirement at a top-ranked comprehensive university in Hong Kong. A qualitative inquiry approach was adopted. The data sources mainly include university documents related to the RAE 2020 socio-economic impact policy, interview data with nine RAE-eligible academics at the case university, documents on the RAE exercises issued by the University Grants Committee (UGC) and field notes taken during the RAE information sessions.

The institutionalisation process of the RAE socio-economic impact agenda could be considered as establishing an indicator-oriented reward and recognition regime for knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange (KT/KE). Overall, two major institutional strategies were identified in operating the RAE 2020 impact agenda at the case university: (1) launching various policy initiatives: driven by the RAE-defined socio-economic impact; (2) incorporating socio-economic impact into faculty evaluation: premised upon the 16 KT performance indicators laid down by the UGC.

This article adds to the theoretical debate on the local reproduction of the global in studies of neoliberalism in higher education by describing a Hong Kong case study, supported by empirical data, of an actual university's responses to the newly included impact requirement in RAE 2020. More specifically, this study reveals that (1) the policy for socio-economic impact might be designed in a neutral or even benevolent manner, but has taken on a neoliberal and managerial dimension in its actual implementation; and (2) the neoliberal discourse underpinning the university's operation can be accounted for and explicated by the local factors embedded in the specific academic environment.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a comparative description of performance evaluation schemes in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

The main content of the paper is a description of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) followed by an analysis of the structure and intent of operation. This is followed by an examination of three Australasian systems, the Research Quality Framework (RQF) (abandoned before implementation), the Excellence in Research in Australia (ERA) (yet to be provided in detail), and the NZ Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF) (operated twice over a period of six years).

The final section attempts to discern whether traces of the RAE can be seen in the Australasian systems and also considers the attributes of each attempt to measure performance.

This paper presents a description of both the RAE, the RQF/ERA and the PBRF, followed by an analysis of the structure and intent of the latter two and a comparison of these evaluation systems.

Investigates whether a correlation exists between a UK university's academic excellence, as judged by its Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) ratings, and the amount spent on its library. Considers both macro and micro levels, looking at institutions as a whole, and on a departmental level within the area of archaeology. As well as comparing all the higher education institutions, this group is broken down further, comparing the ratings and spending of the Russell and 94 Groups. There are correlations between the different groups of higher education institutions and RAE ratings. However, rather than high RAE ratings causing high library spending or high library spending causing high RAE ratings, it is likely that they are indirectly linked, good universities having both high RAE ratings and good libraries and poor universities having low RAE ratings and less money spent on libraries. Also describes how libraries in universities with archaeology departments allocate budgets.

The purpose of this paper is to establish a historical context for the often maligned capital theory of Henry George within a North American frontier tradition that includes John Rae.

Modern discussions of rapid technological and institutional change provide a framework for detailed re‐examination of the capital theories of Rae and George, whose critics were largely constrained by a rigid neoclassical perspective.

Both Rae and George presented capital theories, defined as explanations of the supply of and demand for capital resulting in a determinate capital stock. Both writers stress elements that were not emphasized in neoclassical capital theory, most notably that the capital stock can increase rapidly under certain conditions; increases in knowledge, inventions, technical and technological changes, and scale are more important than mere accumulation of capital; high rates of return combined with rapid technical obsolescence and physical deterioration provide the opportunity for rapid changes in the form of the capital stock, and; the ephemeral nature, and hence potential mobility, of capital implies that security of property is essential for economic growth.

The focus on two writers leads to the question of how widespread their ideas were in nineteenth century North America.

The rapidly changing technology and institutions that Rae and George observed place their theories closer to some modern trends in the study of economic development than to the literature of neoclassical capital theory.

George's grasp of economic theory deserves greater respect than it has often received in the economics literature when his work is considered in its historical context.

For many academics in UK universities the nature and orientation of their research is overwhelmingly determined by considerations of how that work will be graded in research assessment exercises (RAEs). The grades awarded to work in a particular subject area can have a considerable impact on the individual and their university. There is a need to better understand those factors which may influence these grades. The paper seeks to address this issue.

The paper considers relationships between the grades awarded and the quantitative information provided to the assessment panels for the 1996 and 2001 RAEs for two subject areas, built environment and town and country planning, and for three other subject areas, civil engineering, geography and archaeology, in the 2001 RAE.

A simple model demonstrating strong and consistent relationships is established. RAE performance relates to numbers of research active staff, the production of books and journal papers, numbers of research studentships and graduations, and research income. Important differences between subject areas are identified.

Important issues are raised about the extent to which the new assessment methodology to be adopted for the 2008 RAE will capture the essence of good quality research in architecture and built environment.

The findings provide a developmental perspective of RAEs and show how, despite a changed methodology, various research activities might be valued in the 2008 RAE. The basis for a methodology for reviewing the credibility of the judgements of panels is proposed.

This paper reviews the public reception of the Research Assessment Exercise 1996 (RAE) from its announcement in December 1996 to the decline of discussion at end May 1997. A model for diffusion of the RAE is established which distinguishes extra‐communal (or exoteric) from intra‐communal (or esoteric) media. The different characteristics of each medium and the changing nature of the discussion over time are considered. Different themes are distinguished in the public reception of the RAE: the spatial distribution of research; the organisation of universities; disciplinary differences in understanding; a perceived conflict between research and teaching; the development of a culture of accountability; and analogies with the organisation of professional football. In conclusion, it is suggested that the RAE and its effects can be more fully considered from the perspective of scholarly communication and understandings of the development of knowledge than it has been by previous contributions in information science, which have concentrated on the possibility of more efficient implementation of existing processes. A fundamental responsibility for funding councils is also identified: to promote the overall health of university education and research, while establishing meaningful differentiations between units.

Government policies of accountability have led to the imposition of a type of quality measurement on British universities in the form of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). The crudeness of the measures taken raises many questions of reliability and validity in the results. However, the high profile of those results and the implications for long‐term funding have led to obsession in many universities in performing well in the RAE, leading many academics to exhibit BORED symptoms (B***** Obsessive Research assessment Exercise Disorder). Because of their large size relative to other university departments, much of the pressure for improved scores is borne by business schools. This paper argues that, for a number of compelling reasons, for business schools to devote their efforts and resources to improving their RAE scores is likely to be damaging and counter‐productive.