The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is an exercise undertaken approximately every 5 years on behalf of the four UK higher education funding councils (HEFCE, SHEFC, HEFCW, DELNI) to evaluate the quality of research undertaken by British higher education institutions. RAE submissions from each subject area (or unit of assessment) are given a rank by a subject specialist peer review panel. The rankings are used to inform the allocation of quality weighted research funding (QR) each higher education institution receives from their national funding council. Previous RAEs took place in 1986, 1989, 1992, 1996 and 2001. The most recent results were published in December 2008.^[1]

Various media have produced league tables of institutions and disciplines based on the 2008 RAE results. Different methodologies lead to similar but non-identical rankings.

  History

The first exercise of assessing University research in the UK took place in 1986 under the Margaret Thatcher Government. It was conducted by the University Grants Committee, a predecessor of the present Higher Education Funding Councils. The purpose of the exercise was to determine the allocation of funding to UK Universities at a time of tight budgetary restrictions. The committee received submissions of research statements from subject areas ("cost centres") within Universities, and issued quality rankings labelled "outstanding", "above average", "average" or "below average". The research funding allocated to Universities (called "quality-related" funding) depended on the quality ratings of the subject areas.

Two subsequent research assessments were conducted in 1989 and 1992 under the name "research selectivity exercise" by the Universities Funding Council. These were followed by "research assessment exercises" conducted in 1996, 2001 and 2008 jointly by the various UK Higher Education Funding Councils.

  Scale

  2008

The 2008 RAE used a four-point quality scale, and returned a profile, rather than a single aggregate quality score, for each unit. The quality levels—based on assessment of research outputs, research environment and indicators of esteem—are defined as:

Each unit of assessment was given a quality profile - a five-column histogram - indicating the proportion of the research that meets each of four quality levels or is unclassified.

  Earlier Assessments

In 1992, 1996 and 2001, the following descriptions were used for each of the ratings.

These ratings have been applied to "units of assessment", such as French or Chemistry, which often broadly equate to university departments. Various unofficial league tables have been created of university research capability by aggregating the results from units of assessment.^{[citation needed]} Compiling league tables of universities based on the RAE is problematic, as volume and quality are both significant factors.

  Assessment process

The assessment process for the RAE focuses on quality of research outputs (which usually means papers published in academic journals and conference proceedings), research environment, and indicators of esteem. Each subject panel determines precise rules within general guidance. For RAE 2008, institutions are invited to submit four research outputs, published between January 2001 and December 2007, for each full-time member of staff selected for inclusion.^[2]

In response to criticism of earlier assessments, and developments in employment law, the 2008 RAE does more to take into account part-time workers or those new to a sufficient level of seniority to be included in the process.

  Criticism

The RAE has not been without its critics. Amongst the criticisms is the fact that it explicitly ignores the publications of most full-time researchers in the UK, on the grounds that they are employed on fixed term contracts. According to the RAE 2008 guidelines, most research assistants are "not eligible to be listed as research active staff".^[3] Publications by researchers on fixed term contracts are excluded from the Assessment Exercise unless those publications can be credited to a member of staff who is eligible for the RAE. This applies even if the member of staff being assessed only made a minor contribution to the article.^[4] The opposite pheonomenon is also true, where non-research active staff on permanent contracts, such as lecturers who have been responsible primarily for teaching activities have also found themselves placed under deeper contractual pressure by their employing universities to produce research output. Another issue is that it is doubtful whether panels of experts have the necessary expertise to evaluate the quality of research outputs, as experts perform much less well as soon as they are outside their particular area of specialisation.^[5]

Since 1996 the AUT, now incorporated within the UCU, has maintained a policy of opposition to the Research Assessment Exercise.^[6] In its view,

The RAE has had a disastrous impact on the UK higher education system, leading to the closure of departments with strong research profiles and healthy student recruitment. It has been responsible for job losses, discriminatory practices, widespread demoralisation of staff, the narrowing of research opportunities through the over-concentration of funding and the undermining of the relationship between teaching and research.

The official Review of Research Assessment, the 2003 "Roberts Report" commissioned by the UK funding bodies,^[7] recommended changes to research assessment, partly in response to such criticisms.

The House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee considered the Roberts report, and took a more optimistic view,^[8] asserting that, "the RAE had had positive effects: it had stimulated universities into managing their research and had ensured that funds were targeted at areas of research excellence", it concluded that "there had been a marked improvement in universities' research performance". Nevertheless, it argued that "the RAE in its present form had had its day", and proposed a reformed RAE, largely based on Roberts' recommendations.

  Planned changes to RAE system

It was announced^[9] in the 2006 Budget that after the 2008 exercise a system of metrics would be developed in order to inform future allocations of QR funding. Following initial consultation with the higher education sector, it is thought that the Higher Education Funding Councils will introduce a metrics based system of assessment for subjects in science, technology, engineering and medicine. A process of peer review is likely to remain for mathematics, statistics, arts, humanities and social studies subjects.

HEFCE has developed a new set of arrangements, known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF),^[10] which has been introduced as a follow on to the 2008 RAE.

  References

1. ^ RAE 2008
2. ^ RAE 2008 Definitions
3. ^ RAE 2008 Guidelines Para 79
4. ^ The researchers the RAE forgot. Guardian 19 December 2008
5. ^ RAE's non-specialist gambit could have led to blunders, says study Times Higher Education
6. ^ RAE 2008 University and College Union
7. ^ Review of research assessment - report by Sir Gareth Roberts to the UK funding bodies, May 2003
8. ^ Science and Technology Committee, Eleventh Report, 15 September 2004
9. ^ A difficult patch The Guardian
10. ^ REF Research Excellence Framework

  External links

• Links to 2008 League Tables (The Independent)
• Links to 2008 League Tables (Research Fortnight)
• Links to 2008 League Tables (Guardian)
• 2001 RAE Institution Ranking (Guardian)
• Current official RAE website for 2008 exercise
• Archived RAE website for 2001 exercise
• Chanson, H. (2007). "Research Quality, Publications and Impact in Civil Engineering into the 21st Century. Publish or Perish, Commercial versus Open Access, Internet versus Libraries ?" Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, NRC, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 946-951 doi:10.1169/L07-027 (ISSN 0315-1468).
• Chanson, H. (2008). "Some Experience with Digitial Publishing, Open Access Repository, Research Impact and Quality." Proc.Open Access Collection workshop, Australian Partnership for Sustainable Repositories, Brisbane, 14 Feb., 12 pages.