Search results

This chapter explores the development and the role of accounting for research quality in Australia’s Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) assessment exercise. It tracks the progress of performance measurement systems from quantitative to qualitative measurement within the Australian higher education sector since 1970, leading up to the implementation of a formal ERA in 2010, and its subsequent iterations in 2012, 2015, and 2018. Although only a part of the ERA submissions, now certain published research outputs provide the primary evidence for research quality to most ERA panels and are a significant driver of the final rating awarded. Before the authors assess the 2018 exercise, they will examine the ever-changing role of journal publications as a vehicle for academic research output.

The purpose of this article is to discuss Portuguese academics’ views on quality assessment and the elements that are important for a better understanding of what ascribes meaning to “quality cultures” in Portuguese higher education.

The discussion was based on the results of a survey run in 2010 among Portuguese academics on quality assessment objectives and purposes. Descriptive statistics was used to investigate academics’ support to what quality assessment was supposed to guarantee (its purposes) and which should be its objectives. Furthermore, a factorial analysis using Promax rotation (oblique) was performed to investigate if the different purposes could be grouped according to the different areas they address in terms of quality assessment, helping to uncover a rationale that could explain the answers obtained. Theoretically, the results have been analysed in the light of the “quality culture” concept.

Perceptions of Portuguese academics that support internal processes of quality assurance correspond either to the responsive quality culture or the regenerative quality culture. The viable form of ideal cultures is analytically limited, and the perceptions gathered encourage “quality cultures” biased by stronger group control.

The paper offers new insights into academics’ perceptions on quality assessment, a theme that so far has been relatively absent from higher education quality assurance studies. Furthermore, the results obtained could be useful to policymakers and quality assurance agencies when setting up evaluation and accreditation systems capable of balancing improvement associated with the group dimension and accountability coupled with the grid dimension.

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.

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper, using an evidence‐based management theoretical lens, is to examine research impact to provide guidance to supply chain management academics in evidencing and exploiting the outputs, outcomes and impact of their research.

Evidence‐based management theory is examined and applied to types of academic research impact. The distinction between academic and non‐academic impact is developed into a supply chain framework of research outputs, transfer, outcomes, impact and national/international benefits. Impact of supply chain management research is explored through a case study in the English National Health Service. Future opportunities and challenges for supply chain management researchers arising from increasing demand for and supply of evidence are discussed.

Author academic impact and citations are found to be increasingly important building blocks of evidence‐based evaluations of individual academics, journals, research quality assessments of groups and universities, and global rankings of universities. Supply chain management researchers can compare their impact with other areas of academia. Non‐academic impact of research has been assessed by funders of research projects and has spread to research quality assessments of universities.

Bibliometrics provide evidence of author and journal impact that can be used in human resource decisions, research quality assessments and global rankings of universities; this availability enables a debate on appropriate use of academic impact evidence. Supply chain management academics evidencing non‐academic research impact on business, society and economy will enable governments and funders of research to evaluate value for money return on their investment.

This perspective of evidence‐based evaluation of research impact and its implications might encourage debate on academic and non‐academic impact and encourage supply chain researchers to consider evidencing impact in their research design and methodology.

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.

Investigates the ways in which the performance of academic research can be measured. In particular, it considers the role of quality as one aspect of performance. Focuses specifically on the case of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) carried out in all UK universities and highlights the need for clearer definition and measurement frameworks. Considers the extent to which research can be considered as a product or a service. The literature is reviewed and a performance measurement framework for research is suggested, with a set of quantitative performance measures. The extent to which these measures include the RAE measures is then discussed and it is shown that the RAE measures focus primarily on one aspect of performance. Recommendations are made concerning the utilisation of a wider framework than that suggested by the RAE to enable research performance to be assessed in overall terms, improvements to be identified and benchmarking carried out.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the various approaches and tools of assessment used in both schools and tertiary education in New Zealand and their impact on the improvement of the quality of teaching and learning. The objective is to answer the research question: “Does one size fit all?”

The paper comprises an analysis of the existing assessment tools (i.e. traditional and new modes of assessments) being practised in New Zealand, relating them to real cases from the author ' s practical experience in the field, i.e. drawing on both primary and secondary data.

Assessment is found to be an integral part of providing a quality teaching and learning experience for the adult learners, their long life learning process and their participation in the community and the national economy. The study indicated that one size does not fit all if we are aiming at serving our students the best way.

The paper proposes criteria required for an effective quality learning experience, for both educators and earners. It further emphasizes the importance of “assessment for learning” techniques rather than “assessment of learning”.

This study aims to examine human resource development (HRD) research as represented by the citations to the publications in the four journals sponsored by the Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) from 2005 to 2011.

The authors collected citation data from Google Scholar (GS) using Publish or Perish 3 (PoP3) and compared the four journals on the metrics of h, hc, g, e and other Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) commonly reported indexes.

Citation data during the seven-year period provided an overall picture on the status of HRD research and publications. It showed that while HRD journals have made impressive research impact by generating worldwide scholarly citations in multiple languages, additional effort in improving the quality and the impact of research and publications is needed.

This study offers new insights on a number of important issues related to HRD research assessment, research quality, journal impact and editorial performance.

This is an initial effort in the HRD literature that comprehensively analyzes and compares the four AHRD journals. It offers new insights on the assessment of HRD research and journal impact.