Fair assessment? 2

October 6, 2006

The letters on "game-playing" for this research assessment exercise and the financial consequences of the result (September 29) have not separated two important issues: how to rank the outcomes given by the "Roberts vector" of proportions of output in each of five classes; and how the Higher Education Funding Council for England will divide funding on the basis of the outcome, presumably taking account of the proportion of staff submitted.

It has been clear since the Roberts proposals were accepted that ranking departments on the day after the announcement would be tricky and that, in the absence of any summing method across the grades, they would probably be listed by the proportion of 4*s awarded. It is obvious that this would be unfair. The problem is that there is no agreed method of summing the star proportions to get an overall ranking, and until Hefce declares one, we are all in the dark.

The outcome last time was non-linear, with high grades counting for far more than lower grades. For example, departments rated 5 got infinitely more than five times that given to departments rated 1, since the latter got nothing.

When a ranking method is declared, the issue of proportions of staff submitted, to give a fair financial outcome, is easy: the (notional) outputs of non-submitted staff can be added to the unclassified column as a proportion of the whole department, a column that will be funded at a zero rate. If that is done, any funding algorithm that is acceptable across the grades will deal also equitably with the proportion of staff submitted.

Yorick Wilks.
Sheffield University

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

James Fryer illustration (27 July 2017)

It is not Luddism to be cautious about destroying an academic publishing industry that has served us well, says Marilyn Deegan

Jeffrey Beall, associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado Denver

Creator of controversial predatory journals blacklist says some peers are failing to warn of dangers of disreputable publishers

Hand squeezing stress ball
Working 55 hours per week, the loss of research periods, slashed pensions, increased bureaucracy, tiny budgets and declining standards have finally forced Michael Edwards out
Kayaker and jet skiiers

Nazima Kadir’s social circle reveals a range of alternative careers for would-be scholars, and often with better rewards than academia

hole in ground

‘Drastic action’ required to fix multibillion-pound shortfall in Universities Superannuation Scheme, expert warns