Higher Education

, Volume 48, Issue 4, pp 461–482

The research assessment exercise in English universities, 2001

  • K.J. Morgan
Article

Abstract

At intervals of 3–4 years, researchquality in English universities has beenexternally reviewed 5 times over the past 16years. Assessment is based on peer-review ofmaterial submitted by universities to 70separate subject panels. The principalcomponent is information on research output,usually publications, from all academic staffidentified as ``research active''. Researchquality is rated on a numerical (1–5*),criteria-based scale. Ratings in all subjectareas and across all universities haveincreased to give an average rating in 2001corresponding to a level of ``attainablenational excellence''. Between universitiesthere are significant variations. In theprestigious Loxbridge group, where almost allacademic staff are research-active, 90% ofsubject areas achieved ratings at level 5 in2001; in contrast, in the New universities,where only 40% of academic staff isresearch-active, level 5 was achieved in 7% ofsubject areas. A combination of high researchquality and high cost research (medicine,science, engineering) concentrated in the Olduniversities is similarly evident in thedistribution of research funding. Income fromboth research subsidy and research grants andcontracts is divided: Old universities, 94%(Loxbridge, 35%), New universities, 6%. High institutional costs of the assessmentprocess, particularly for areas of low-costresearch, and increasing concern about theinadequacies of the rating system and failureof its direct link to funding suggest thatsubstantial revision will be needed for futureassessment exercises.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. UFC (1992). RAE 1992 The outcome. UFC, 26–92.Google Scholar
  2. HEFCE (1996). RAE 1996 Research Assessment Exercise. The Outcome. HEFCE RAE1/96.Google Scholar
  3. HEFCE (1997). Conduct of the exercise: RAE Manager's Report. HEFCE RAE96 1/97.Google Scholar
  4. HEFCE (1997). Funding Method for Research for 1997–1998. HEFCE C4/97.Google Scholar
  5. HEFCE (1997). Recurrent Grants for the Academic Year 1997–1998. HEFCE C6/97.Google Scholar
  6. HEFCE (1997). Recurrent Grants for the Academic Year 1997–1998. Final allocation, HEFCE C16/97.Google Scholar
  7. HEFCE (2001). 2001 Research Assessment Exercise. The Outcome. HEFCE RAE 1/4.Google Scholar
  8. HEFCE (2001). Funding Higher Education in England. HEFCE Guide 01/14.Google Scholar
  9. HEFCE (2002). Recurrent Grants 2002–2003. HEFCE Report 02/11.Google Scholar
  10. HEFCE (2002). Funding Higher Education in England. HEFCE Guide 02/18. <nt>Data on research grants and contracts, on numbers of academic and research staff, and on student numbers are taken from the annual publications of University Statistics (USR) (to 1993–1994) and subsequently the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA).</nt>Google Scholar
  11. HESA (2002). Students in Higher Education Institutions, 2000/01. Cheltenham: HESA (and earlier years).Google Scholar
  12. HESA (2002). Resources of Higher Education Institutions, 2000/01. Cheltenham: HESA (and earlier years).Google Scholar
  13. USR (1994). University Statistics 1993–1994. Volume 1. Students and Staff. Volume 3. Finance (1992–1993). Chelltenham: Universities' Statistical Record (and earlier years).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • K.J. Morgan
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Studies of Higher EducationNagoya UniversityJapan

Personalised recommendations