Funding council slated for RAE waste

November 8, 2002

Inconsistent standards and wasteful efforts dogged last year's research assessment exercise, according to Universities UK. Moreover, it told the funding councils that "the funding outcome from RAE 2001 is not acceptable".

The RAE - which informs how much money each university gets for research - came in for "strident criticism" after the funding councils invited organisations to contribute to a review of research assessment.

UUK used its preliminary response to attack the RAE.

UUK expressed concern that there was a lack of consistent application of standards between panels. This meant that in some subject areas everyone did well, while in others there was a much more mixed outcome.

For example, pre-clinical studies research across the country was deemed to be brilliant all round: there were entries from five institutions; two were awarded the top-rated 5* and three gained a 5.

At the other end of the scale, 34 institutions entered staff in the environmental sciences category. Two received the 5*, two got 5, ten got 4 - at which funding stops in England - two got 3a, seven got 3b and 11 got 2.

UUK also expressed concern that there was a diminishing rate of return from the amount of effort.

Its preliminary response states: "At the boundaries between grades, more and more effort was being put into differentiating between outcomes that were felt by many to be to a large extent already determinate.

"Arguments have been made that the same conclusions could be reached with much less effort and the extent of the subsequent redirection of funding is of the same order as the cost of the assessment process, which is hardly cost-effective."

UUK states that research funding should be allocated using a selective method that is transparent, accountable, proportional, consistent and targeted.

The closing date for the initial consultation by the national funding councils is November 29.

The research assessment steering group, which is chaired by Sir Gareth Roberts, president of Wolfson College, Oxford, will then devise a number of different models that will be presented to the funding councils in April.

A formal consultation on the shape of future research assessment is due to begin in May 2003.

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
Register

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