Search results

Provides a response to Puxty et al.′s call for academics to become involved in public policy debate. Addresses the issue of the effect on British university accounting research of the promotion and undertaking of continual research selectivity exercises. This should be of direct concern to accounting and other academics. The key message is that greater co‐operation, not competition, is needed both to secure a healthy future for academic accounting across the broad range of institutions in which the subject is researched and taught, and to provide a worthwhile educational experience for all students, not just the favoured few.

The overall aim of this paper was to examine the impact of the Australian research assessment exercise on the research approaches (positivist/non-positivist) favoured by accounting disciplines in Australia. Our key research question examined how the outputs and foci of research in elite accounting disciplines changed over a 16-year period. Our analysis was informed by Bourdieu's notions of academic elitism and symbolic violence.

We analysed all papers published in 20 major accounting journals across a 16-year period by Australian accounting disciplines that were highly rated in the research assessment exercise. We also compared our results from this group against two case study accounting disciplines that were not rated as “world class”.

Our key finding is that the introduction of a research assessment exercise in Australia has resulted in research outputs of elite accounting disciplines over this period being increasingly focused on positivist rather than non-positivist research. Our findings evidence a narrowing of accounting disciplines' research agendas and foci across the period.

Our findings highlight a considerable narrowing of the research agenda and paradigms in accounting disciplines that is not in the public interest. Our findings also have implications for the literature on academic elitism. The narrowing of the research agenda and greater foci on positivist research exhibited in our findings demonstrates the role of dominant elites in controlling the research agenda through a research assessment exercise.

A practical implication is that proper research, regardless of the approach used, must be appropriately recognised and accepted by Accounting Disciplines, not ostracised or discouraged. Research implications are the breadth of accounting research should be celebrated and concentration eschewed. Australian accounting discipline leaders should not fall for the illusion that the only good research is that which is published in a small number of North American positivist journals.

Our findings provide insights into Bourdieu's work through demonstrating how dominant players have successfully exploited an external regulatory mechanism, a research assessment exercise, to strengthen their position within a field and exert control over the research agendas of accounting disciplines. Previous work by Bourdieu has not directly examined how actors utilise these outside forces as instruments for shaping their own field.

Purpose — This chapter provides an historical overview of assessments of research quality conducted by the UK funding councils in the period 1986–2008, with special reference to the assessments that have been carried out of departments in the library and information management (LIM) sector.

Methodology/approach — A literature review covering both LIM-specific material and more general sources discussing the assessment of research quality in UK universities.

Findings — There is clear evidence of an increase in the general quality of the research carried out by the LIM sector over the review period. This has been accompanied by a decrease in the number of traditional LIM departments submitting themselves for assessment, with these being replaced in the assessment process largely by information systems departments. The rankings over the review period have been dominated by a small number of departments with long-established research traditions.

Originality/value of the paper — While there is an extensive literature describing research assessment in general, and a few articles describing individual assessments in the LIM sector, there is no overview of the involvement of the LIM departments over the whole series of assessment exercises that has been carried out.

In the United Kingdom the quality of research in Higher Education Institutions is assessed on a regular basis via the Research Assessment Exercises. The outcome determines the allocation of grants for research in the following period of assessment. They are very important and, for the first time, records management is explicitly identified in the scope of the Library and Information Management Panel‘s subject area for the next exercise. In this article the chair of that panel reflects on the exercises to date, the policies to be adopted in 2001 and a brief discussion of the Library and Information Panel (Unit of Assessment 61).

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.

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 study was carried out to assess the correlation between scores achieved by academic departments in the UK in the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise, and the number of citations received by academics in those departments for articles published in the period 1988±1992, using the Institute for Scientific Information’s citation databases. Only those papers first authored by academics identified from the Commonwealth Universities Yearbook were examined. Three subject areas: Anatomy, Genetics and Archaeology were chosen to complement Library and Information Management that had already been the subject of such a study. It was found that in all three cases, there is a statistically significant correlation between the total number of citations received, or the average number of citations per member of staff, and the Research Assessment Exercise score. Surprisingly, the strongest correlation was found in Archaeology, a subject noted for its heavy emphasis on monographic literature and with relatively low citation counts. The results make it clear that citation counting provides a robust and reliable indicator of the research performance of UK academic departments in a variety of disciplines, and the paper argues that for future Research Assessment Exercises, citation counting should be the primary, but not the only, means of calculating Research Assessment Exercise scores.

A citation study was carried out on all 217 academics who teach in UK library and information science schools. These authors between them received 622 citations in Social Scisearch for articles they had published between 1988 and the present. The results were ranked by department, and compared to the ratings awarded to the departments in the 1992 Universities Funding Council Research Assessment Exercise. Using the Spearman Rank Order Correlation coefficient, it was found that there is a statistically significant correlation between the numbers of citations received by a department in total, or the average number of citations received in the department per academic, and the Research Assessment Exercise rating. The paper concludes that this provides further independent support for the validity of citation counting, even when using just the first authors as a search tool for cited references. The paper also concludes that the cost and effort of the Research Assessment Exercise may not be justified when a simpler and cheaper alternative, namely a citation counting exercise, could be undertaken. The paper also concludes that the University of North London would probably have benefitted from being included in the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise.

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.

Small and specialist inter‐disciplinary conferences, particularly those relating to technology enhanced learning such as International Conference on Information and Communications Technology in Education, provide valuable opportunities for academics and academic‐related/professional staff to report upon their research and development activities, including their insights into teaching practice. However, the existence of such conferences is now under threat due to a global shift towards quantitative research assessment exercises, which favour bibliometrics, such as citation counts and impact factors, over peer review. The purpose of this paper is to contextualise the discussion by describing the nascent qualitative research assessment in Australia and its implications for small conferences. It also aims to present heuristic strategies to ensure that publications are recognised by quantitative research assessment exercises.

The authors draw on a wide literature base as well as their experience as academics, conference organizers, professional developers, and researchers to describe the changes to the culture of research assessment and research management and their observed implications for small and specialist inter‐disciplinary conferences.

Conference organizers and scientific committees should consider several strategies to maximise bibliometric impact of conference papers. These strategies include: transparency in reviewing processes; building alliances with peer‐reviewed journals; considering boutique “by invitation” conference formats; and publishing papers which are indexed and standards based. The authors also point out that small and specialist conferences should leverage their communities of practice to facilitate publication and research opportunities and thereby increase the tangible benefits of participation.

This paper is valuable to conference organizers and participants who are adjusting to a culture of bibliometrics. This paper highlights key issues as well as suggests strategies to improve impact values.