Research Assessment Exercise

Research Assessment Exercise. The Research Assessment Exercise was a periodic evaluation of academic research quality conducted across the United Kingdom's higher education sector. Managed primarily by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, it aimed to distribute public research funding selectively based on performance. Its outcomes significantly influenced institutional reputations, departmental strategies, and career trajectories within British universities.

History and development

The initiative was first implemented in 1986 under the government of Margaret Thatcher, emerging from a political climate emphasizing accountability and value for public expenditure. The University Grants Committee initially oversaw the process before responsibility transferred to the newly formed funding councils. Subsequent exercises occurred in 1992, 1996, 2001, and 2008, each refining its approach in response to sector feedback. Key figures like Sir Gareth Roberts contributed to its evolution, which culminated in its replacement by the Research Excellence Framework after the 2008 assessment.

Methodology and framework

Assessment was conducted through expert review by disciplinary panels, often comprising senior academics from institutions like the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge. Submissions were organized into units of assessment, with institutions selecting staff and output for evaluation. Panels graded research quality on a scale, considering factors such as publications in journals like Nature and Science, research income from bodies like the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and doctoral completions. The process was coordinated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England in partnership with the Scottish Funding Council and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.

Impact and outcomes

The results directly determined the allocation of substantial funding from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, creating intense competition between universities such as Imperial College London and the University of Manchester. High-performing departments experienced increased investment and prestige, while lower-rated units faced restructuring or closure. The exercise also drove strategic hiring, with institutions recruiting star researchers from abroad, and intensified focus on publication in high-impact venues like The Lancet. Data from the exercises were frequently cited in league tables published by The Guardian and The Times.

Criticisms and controversies

Critics, including scholars from the London School of Economics, argued the process encouraged short-termism and gaming, such as the poaching of staff ahead of submission deadlines. It was accused of distorting research agendas away from risky, long-term scholarship toward safer, publishable work. Concerns about workload and stress were raised by the University and College Union. Notable controversies included the submission of the same research output by multiple institutions and debates over the assessment of interdisciplinary work, which led to inquiries by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.

International comparisons

The model influenced similar evaluations globally, such as the Excellence in Research for Australia initiative and the Performance-Based Research Fund in New Zealand. It is often contrasted with bibliometric-based systems like the Shanghai Ranking and the evaluation frameworks used by the European Research Council. While the Research Assessment Exercise was a peer-review model, other nations, like Italy with its ANVUR agency, have employed different metric-driven approaches. Its successor, the Research Excellence Framework, continues to be studied by policymakers in Germany and Japan.

Category:Research and development in the United Kingdom Category:Higher education in the United Kingdom Category:Academic assessment