FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2046803566> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2046803566 endingPage "1803" @default.
• W2046803566 startingPage "1802" @default.
• W2046803566 abstract "Jonathan Adams's Editorial “Research Assessment in the UK” (3 May, p. [805][1]) paints an unduly selective and congratulatory picture of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). There is a strong belief among academic researchers that the apparent increase in UK research performance illustrated in his graph is mostly due to “grade inflation,” as academics learn how to play the RAE game and tell the assessors what they want to hear. As a consequence, the recent RAE deemed more than half of the UK's academic departments to be of “international quality” in research, a figure that is manifestly ludicrous. This is why the “funding differentials are being flattened”: If too many departments get the top grade, there is insufficient money to reward them all. An unfortunate side effect is that genuinely top-grade departments can no longer be distinguished from those of lower rank, so the truly top departments cannot be rewarded either. In short, the RAE has comprehensively destroyed the rationale for its own existence.It is possible that the RAE has helped to improve the UK's research in some respects. It has certainly helped to increase the salaries of some researchers, by creating a “transfer fee” mentality in which academics who are likely to score well on the RAE are paid higher salaries to entice them to other institutions or to prevent them being so enticed. But Adams fails to mention the downside of this exercise, which is the amount of academic time and effort expended in preparing the required documentation. This was justifiable when the exercise produced tangible rewards, but it is a complete waste of time when it does not, and this is the real reason why the RAE has now pretty much run its course.The RAE is not the only such exercise inflicted on UK academics. The worst example is the Teaching Quality Assessment (TQA), which would be better called the Document Quantity Assessment. This immense and tedious bureaucractic exercise consumes vast amounts of time and energy and achieves very little, aside from damaging academic morale, wasting time that could better be spent on actual teaching, and piling up mounds of unnecessary paperwork. The TQA is universally detested by the UK's academic community, whereas the RAE has been tolerated—until now. This tendency toward overassessment has done enormous damage to the whole of the UK's public sector, including police, teachers, nurses, doctors, and higher education. Workers in many of these areas are now leaving in droves.I would like to think that the real reason why a system like the RAE is “a rarity internationally” is that other countries have observed the sheer stupidity of the UK's assessment procedures and vowed not to make the same mistake. Certainly, the RAE should be seen as a ghastly warning rather than as a model for other countries to follow. Unfortunately, I expect to see other countries heading down the same destructive path, seduced by the same simplistic arguments. Uncritical and selective reports like the one written by Adams will certainly encourage them to do so, and for this reason alone it is important for opposing views to be heard.# Response {#article-title-2}I am sympathetic to much of the thrust of Stewart's thinking, but just as he argues that there is a downside, so my Editorial argues that there is an undeniable upside to the RAE. There have been lots of articles written in the UK about what a burden the RAE has been for individuals; there have been fewer discussing what effect it has had on the system.I think Stewart is confused about what I said in the Editorial, perhaps because the limited space meant that I necessarily left out some of the background and qualifying statements (hence his comment that it was uncritical and selective). For example, the graph showed citation impact from ISI, not average RAE grade, and was there precisely because it was not susceptible to the manipulation Stewart suggests.I am not sure why it is “manifestly ludicrous” that half of UK academic researchers work in units that are producing a significant proportion of world-class research. How many departments has Stewart visited that would assert that this is not the case. However, I agree that this is mathematically why the differentials are flattened and that this is why the RAE has essentially outlived its original purpose.As far as academic time and effort are concerned, it is the view of many senior research managers that a significant degree of effort should be invested in academic research management and that the marginal additional cost of the RAE is often overestimated. A review carried out by a major accountancy firm after the 1996 RAE suggested that the correct marginal cost of the exercise was about 1 to 2% of the funds disbursed. I agree that, however small the cost, it becomes a waste of time when the reward system breaks down.Stewart is absolutely correct in his comments about other assessment and evaluation exercises in UK academia, many of which cost far more than the RAE in relation to the rewards. As far as the RAE is concerned, the evidence from surveys is that it does not deter anyone from taking part in research and that most researchers—particularly relatively new recruits—feel that some form of accountability is both necessary and desirable.I cannot agree that the RAE path is destructive. UK research has improved, the system is more effective and efficient, and—as a consequence—UK universities have got more cash from the Treasury than might otherwise have been the case.I have been invited to make presentations on the RAE to senior committees of research directors and academics in Copenhagen and Bonn. Despite all attempts to persuade them that this is a costly exercise to adopt and may have many unexpected impacts on the behavior of their staffs, the universal reaction is “Maybe, but look what its done to boost your research in the UK.” As I said in my Editorial, the evidence seems to support their view. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.296.5569.805" @default.
• W2046803566 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2046803566 creator A5075565519 @default.
• W2046803566 date "2002-06-07" @default.
• W2046803566 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2046803566 title "Reassessing Research Assessment in the UK" @default.
• W2046803566 doi "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.296.5574.1802" @default.
• W2046803566 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12053937" @default.
• W2046803566 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W2046803566 type Work @default.
• W2046803566 sameAs 2046803566 @default.
• W2046803566 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2046803566 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2046803566 hasAuthorship W2046803566A5075565519 @default.
• W2046803566 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2046803566 hasConceptScore W2046803566C17744445 @default.
• W2046803566 hasIssue "5574" @default.
• W2046803566 hasLocation W20468035661 @default.
• W2046803566 hasLocation W20468035662 @default.
• W2046803566 hasOpenAccess W2046803566 @default.
• W2046803566 hasPrimaryLocation W20468035661 @default.
• W2046803566 hasRelatedWork W2724734218 @default.
• W2046803566 hasRelatedWork W2733848258 @default.
• W2046803566 hasRelatedWork W2743539335 @default.
• W2046803566 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2046803566 hasRelatedWork W2890326160 @default.
• W2046803566 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2046803566 hasRelatedWork W2922049016 @default.
• W2046803566 hasRelatedWork W2949263084 @default.
• W2046803566 hasRelatedWork W2955725829 @default.
• W2046803566 hasRelatedWork W594353338 @default.
• W2046803566 hasVolume "296" @default.
• W2046803566 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2046803566 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2046803566 magId "2046803566" @default.
• W2046803566 workType "article" @default.