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.

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.

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.

Argues that the funding arrangements for UK higher education and in particular the rules and rewards of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) have encouraged individuals, departments and institutions to prioritize research at the expense of teaching. Presents empirical evidence from geography, including the views of selected staff on the impact of the RAE on teaching in their departments and the negative impacts on the writing of textbooks and involvement in the Teaching and Learning Technology Programme. Argues that there should be a reappraisal of the impact of RAE on UK higher education. These developments are set in the context of the discussion of quality concerns in education in the United States.

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine prominent issues and knowledge contributions from research exploring measurement and assessment of accounting research, impact and engagement. This paper also provides an overview of the other papers presented in this AAAJ Special Issue and draws from their findings to scope out future impactful research opportunities in this area.

Consists of a review and examination of the prior literature and the other papers published in this AAAJ Special Issue.

The paper identifies and summarises three key research themes in the extant literature: research productivity of accounting academics; the rise of the “Corporate University” and commodification of research; and, the benefits and limitations of Research Assessment Exercises. It draws upon work within these research themes to set out four broad areas for future impactful research.

The value of this paper rests with collating and synthesising several important research themes on the nature and impact of measurement and assessment of accounting research, impact and engagement, and in prompting future extensions of this work through setting out areas for further innovative research in the area.

The research examined in this paper and the future research avenues proposed are highly relevant to university academics, administrators and regulators/policymakers. They also offer important insights into matters of accounting measurement, accountability, and control more generally.

This paper adds to vibrant existing streams of research in the area by bringing together authors from different areas of accounting research for this AAAJ Special Issue. In scoping out an agenda for impactful research in the nature and impact of measurement and assessment of accounting research, impact and engagement, this paper also draws attention to underexplored issues pertaining to areas such as the “lived experience” of academics in the corporatised university and envisioning what a future “optimal” system of measurement and assessment of research quality might look like?

The purpose of this paper is to describe HKUST Library’s active participation in helping the university prepare for the 2014 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE 2014) in Hong Kong. Through the process the authors demonstrated library’s value and librarians’ expertise in supporting research.

This is a case study that highlights how HKUST Library tackled this complex exercise. The effort was delineated as three stages: the design stage when the authors proactively supported the electronic system design for RAE 2014, the formation stage in which the submission infrastructure was built, and the data process stage.

Based on the Library’s experience in creating and managing the Institutional Repository and the Scholarly Publication Database, the participation proved to be instrumental in designing and building the electronic infrastructure for the RAE 2014. After the project, the HKUST research community had higher trust and regard of the Library, both for the research information management systems and librarians’ expertise in providing research support service.

The paper elaborates details of HKUST Library’s effort, including human resource deployment, project management strategy, operational tactics, challenges the authors faced and keys to success. The experience demonstrates that libraries and librarians can establish credibility and gain respect from research communities through delivering tangible outcomes.

There is very few case studies in the literature on libraries’ participation in and contribution to RAEs. This paper fills a gap in the area.