Abstract
The British system of quality assessment of research in universities, known as the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), has recently been the subject of major public policy review and debate. The system of research quality or performance assessment has been running for over twenty years, although many of its facets have changed as has the increasingly marketised political economy. Nevertheless, the UK RAE has been the prototype for the growth and development of such systems internationally, although how different countries have conceived of such forms of review has varied greatly. The question of the relationship between research quality in higher education and the public funding of research lies at the heart of what has become a contentious and acrimonious debate in the UK. While these issues can be seen as fundamentally about social and economic matters, in fact the social sciences as an organised group of subjects or interests have not played a key role in the public arena. This article outlines the contours of the recent debates in the UK, by comparison and contrast with the ways in which such systems of performance and quality assessment have been debated inter alia in Australia, New Zealand, France and the Netherlands. In essence, the issues have centred upon questions of measurement of performance known as metrication, and bibliometrics versus social judgments about research quality.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Academy of Social Sciences. (2006) DfES document. Reform of higher education research assessment and funding. Response on behalf of the Academy of Social Sciences (September), http://www.acss.org.uk.
Adams, J. (2006) ‘Consistency confirms strength of UK research’, Research Fortnight, 11 October.
Adams, J. (2007) ‘View from the top. Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition’, Research Fortnight, 25 April.
Adams, J., Gurney, K. and Marshall, S. (2007) ‘Profiling citation impact: a new methodology’, Scientometrics 27 (2): 325–344 (jointly published by Akademiaai Kiado, Budapest and Springer Dordrecht).
Ball, S.J. (2007) Education plc: Understanding Private Sector Participation in Public Sector Education, London: Routledge.
Becker, S., Bryman, A. and Sempik, J. (2006) ‘Defining ‘Quality’ in social policy research views, perceptions and a framework for discussion’, Lavenham Suffolk Social Policy Association & Joint Universities Council Social Policy Committee.
Clegg, S. and David, M.E. (2006) ‘Passion, pedagogies and the project of the personal in higher education’, Twenty-first Century Society 1 (2): 149–167.
David, M.E. (2007) ‘Equity and diversity: towards a sociology of higher education for the twenty-first century?’ British Journal of Sociology of Education 28 (5): 675–690.
Gilbert, N. (2006) Discussion list on options for post 2008 social sciences research assessment ACSS-FUTURE-OF-RAE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK, http://www.esrcsoceitytoday.ac.uk.
Hantrais, L. (2006) ‘Bibliometrics in the social sciences and humanities. Key points from a study of the research assessment in France for the comité national d’évaluation de la recherché’ (October), unpublished paper and personal communication.
HEFCE. (2007) Circular letter number 06/2007, Future framework for research assessment and funding, Bristol HEFCE, 6 March.
Leydesdorff, L. (2006) The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, USA Universal Publishers, http://www.universal-publishers.com and www.leyesdorff.net.
Middleton, S. (2008, in press) ‘Research assessment as a pedagogical device: Bernstein, professional identity and education in New Zealand’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 29 (2) March.
Morley, L. (2003) Quality and Power in Higher Education, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Research Councils UK (RCUK). (2006) DfES Consultation on reform of Higher Education Research Assessment and Funding Submission from Research Councils UK.
Roberts, Sir G. (2007) ‘Dual support; duel for support’, Powerpoint Presentation to the Society for Research in Higher Education, March.
Sastry, T. and Bekhradnia, B. (2006) ‘Using metrics to allocate research funds. A short evaluation of alternatives to the Research Assessment Exercise’, Oxford Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), April, www.hepi.ac.uk.
Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G. (2004) Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Spaanen, J. (2007) ‘Judging research on its merit? The Standard Evaluation Protocol and the evaluation of societal quality’, Powerpoint presentation from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences to the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, Ireland, 3 May.
The Sutton Trust. (2007) University Admissions by Individual Schools, London: The Sutton Trust (September).
Urry, J. and Walby, S. (2006) ‘Better than money: new peer review metrics for the next RAE’, unpublished paper and personal communication.
Yates, L. (2006) ‘Is impact a measure of quality? Producing quality research and producing quality indicators of research in Australia’, in J. Blackmore, J. Wright and V. Harwood (eds.) Australian Educational Review No 6: Special Issue on ‘Counterpoints on the Quality and Impact of Educational Research’, pp. 119–132.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
David, M. Research Quality Assessment and the Metrication of the Social Sciences. Eur Polit Sci 7, 52–63 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210176
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210176