Research Assessment Exercise

Research Assessment Exercise
Name	Research Assessment Exercise
Formation	1986
Type	Evaluation exercise
Purpose	Evaluate quality of research in higher education institutions
Region	United Kingdom
Parent organization	Higher Education Funding Council for England

Contents

Research Assessment Exercise The Research Assessment Exercise was a periodic evaluation of research quality in United Kingdom higher education institutions, designed to inform funding allocations and public accountability. It influenced institutional strategy, academic careers, and national research priorities across universities and colleges. The exercise interacted with major bodies such as the Higher Education Funding Council for England, Scottish Funding Council, Research Councils UK, Office for National Statistics and affected institutions like the University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, University of Edinburgh, London Business School and Imperial College London.

Overview

The exercise assessed submissions from departments and units across universities including University College London, King's College London, University of Manchester, University of Glasgow and University of Bristol to produce quality profiles used by funders such as the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Scottish Funding Council. Panels composed of academics and experts from institutions such as the British Academy, Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering, Wellcome Trust and Arts and Humanities Research Council reviewed outputs, impact statements and environment submissions from centres in arts faculties at Courtauld Institute of Art and law faculties at London School of Economics, as well as STEM departments at University of Cambridge and University of Oxford. The results shaped resource decisions affecting campuses across cities like London, Edinburgh, Bristol, Manchester and Birmingham.

Originating from government-led initiatives in the 1980s, the exercise evolved through iterations in 1986, 1989, 1992 and later rounds, interacting with policy developments under administrations led by figures associated with the Cabinet Office and ministries linked to higher education funding. Reforms involved stakeholders including the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Scottish Funding Council and the Welsh Government as universities such as University of St Andrews, University of Warwick, Durham University and Queen Mary University of London adapted to changes. Influential reviews and reports by advisory bodies such as the HEFCE steering committees and consultations with the Royal Society informed methodological shifts leading to successor frameworks used by agencies like Research Councils UK and eventually the Research Excellence Framework.

Submissions combined peer-reviewed outputs (journal articles, monographs, performances) from scholars at institutions including University of Leeds, University of Southampton, University of Sheffield, University of Nottingham and Newcastle University with statements about research environment and selected impact case studies. Panels drew on expertise from learned societies including the British Academy, Royal Society of Chemistry, Institute of Physics and Royal Historical Society to assess originality, significance and rigour. Metrics often referenced citation indices from sources used by bodies like Thomson Reuters and databases accessed by libraries at Bodleian Library and British Library, though the exercise emphasised structured peer review over sole reliance on quantitative measures. Unit-level profiles produced outputs that funders in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland used to allocate quality-related research funding affecting institutions such as University of Liverpool and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

Results affected funding models, hiring, promotion and strategic planning across institutions such as University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, King's College London, University of Birmingham and University of York. Departments reoriented recruitment and workload policies in response to outcomes, influencing research groupings, collaborations with organisations like the Wellcome Trust, industry partners including GlaxoSmithKline and hospital trusts like Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust. The exercise shaped national research priorities, informed curriculum choices at conservatoires and art schools connected with the Royal College of Music and impacted doctoral training partnerships coordinated with agencies such as UK Research and Innovation.

Critics from institutions including University of Sussex, Goldsmiths, University of London, University of East Anglia and learned societies such as the Royal Society and British Sociological Association argued the process incentivised gaming, selective submission, and short-termism. Debates involved unions like the University and College Union and policy commentators associated with think tanks such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies over consequences for academic freedom, workload allocation and interdisciplinary research spanning centres at University of Bath and Lancaster University. High-profile controversies included disputes about vote-counting of outputs, the role of metrics advocated by providers like Elsevier and allegations about the narrowing of curricular offerings at some colleges.

The exercise was compared with international evaluation systems such as the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA), the National Science Foundation-linked assessment discussions in the United States, national reviews in countries like Germany (involving the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), and research funding formulas used in Canada and Japan. Comparative analyses considered differences with frameworks like the Humboldtian model debates and benchmarking practices in institutions such as the Max Planck Society and CNRS in France, highlighting contrasts in peer review emphasis, bibliometric use and institutional incentives at universities including Université PSL and ETH Zurich.