The Impact of Research Assessment and Teaching-Quality Exercises on the UK University System

  • Peter J. Sloane


Historically, decisions relating to resource allocation in British universities were largely left to the universities themselves,1 but in the 1980s the Conservative government attempted to introduce accountability and performance measurement into the public sector and this also applied to the universities. This involved not only selectivity in the distribution of resources but also rationalisation and, where appropriate, the closure of small departments, firmer financial control and attempts to improve the standard of teaching (Cave and Weale, 1992). Two reasons for this intervention were suggested in a 1991 white paper, Higher Education: A New Framework, namely the considerable growth in student numbers and the development of competition among institutions as a result of changes to the funding mechanism.


Research Rating Academic Staff Research Assessment Attainable Level Research Assessment Exercise 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, J. (2000) ‘The Role of Selectivity and the Characteristics of Excellence’, report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, Higher Education Policy Unit, University of Leeds, October.Google Scholar
  2. Arestis, P. and Young, A. (1994) ‘The Economics of Assessment and the Assessment of Economics: The 1992–93 SHEFC Exercise’, Royal Economic Society Newsletter, no. 87 (October), pp. 2–4.Google Scholar
  3. Cave, M. (1994) ‘Why Students Need (Consumer) Protection’, Royal Economic Society Newsletter, no. 87 (October), pp. 18–20.Google Scholar
  4. Cave, M. and Weale, M. (1992) ‘The Assessment: Higher Education, the State of Play’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol. 8, no. 2 (Summer), pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  5. Cohn, E., Rhine, S. L. W. and Santos, M. C. (1989) ‘Institutions of Higher Education as Multi-Product Firms: Economies of Scale and Scope’, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 71 (May), pp. 284–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dearing Report (1997), The National Committee into Higher Education, London, HMSO.Google Scholar
  7. De Groot, H., McMahon, W. W. and Volkwein, J.F. (1991) ‘The Cost Structure of American Research Universities’, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 73, pp. 424–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Euwals, R. and Ward, M. (2000) ‘What Matters Most: Teaching or Research? Empirical Evidence on the Remuneration of British Academics’, IZA working paper (Bonn: IZA, August).Google Scholar
  9. Geuna, A. (2001) ‘The Changing Rationale for European University Research Funding: Are there Negative Unintended Consequences?’, Journal of Economic Issues, vol. xxxv, no. 3 (September), pp. 607–32.Google Scholar
  10. Hare, P. and Wyatt, G. (1992) ‘Economics of Academic Research and its Implications for Higher Education’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, vol. 8, no. 2 (Summer), pp. 48–66.Google Scholar
  11. Harrison, M. and Lockwood, B. (2001) ‘What Price Teaching Quality?’, Royal Economic Society Newsletter, no,. 113 (April), pp. 3–5.Google Scholar
  12. HMSO (1987), A Strategy for the Science Base, London.Google Scholar
  13. James, E. and Neuberger, E. (1981) ‘The University Department as a Non-Profit Labour Co-operative’, Public Choice, vol. 36, pp. 585–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnes, G. (1988) ‘Research Performance Indicators in the University Sector’, Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 2 (Winter), pp. 54–71.Google Scholar
  15. Johnes, G. (1990) ‘Measures of Research Output: University Departments of Economics in the UK, 1984–88’, Economic Journal, vol. 100, no. 401 Uune), pp. 556–60.Google Scholar
  16. Johnes, G. and Taylor, J. (1992) ‘The 1989 Research Selectivity Exercise: A Statistical Analysis of Differences in Research Ratings Between Universities at the Cost Centre Level’, Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 46, no. 1 (Winter), pp. 67–87.Google Scholar
  17. Johnes, G., Taylor, J. and Francis, B. (1993) ‘The Research Performance of UK Universities: A Statistical Analysis of the Results of the 1989 Research Selectivity Exercise’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, series A, part 2, vol. 156, pp. 271–86.Google Scholar
  18. McNabb, R. Pal, S. and Sloane, P. J. (2002) ‘Gender Differences in Student Attainment: the Case of University Students in the UK’, Economica, vol. 69, pp. 481–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McNay, I. (1997) The Impact of the 1992 RAE on Institutional and Individual Behaviour in English Higher Education (Bristol: HEFC, May).Google Scholar
  20. Moore, W. J., Newman, R. J. and Sloane, P. J. (2001) ‘Effects of Research Assessment Exercise in Research Productivity of UK Academic Economists’, unpublished manuscript, Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University.Google Scholar
  21. Nerlove, M. (1972) ‘On Tuition and Costs of Higher Education: Prolegomena to a Conceptual Framework’, Journal ofPolitical Economy, vol. 80, pp. S178–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Talib, A. A. (1999) ‘Simulations of the Submission Decision in the Research Assessment Exercise: The Who and Where Decision’, Education Economics, vol. 7, no. 1 (April), pp. 39–52.Google Scholar
  23. Taylor, J. (1995) ‘A Statistical. Analysis of the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, series A, vol. 158, part 2, pp. 241–62.Google Scholar
  24. Taylor, J. and Izadi, H. (1998) ‘The 1992 Research Assessment Exercise: Outcomes, Outputs and Impacts in Economics and Econometrics’, Bulletin of Economic Research, vol. 48, no. 1 (January), pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  25. Williams, B. (1991) University Responses to Research Selectivity (London: CHES).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter J. Sloane

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations