Research Assessment Exercise 1992

Research Assessment Exercise 1992 was the United Kingdom evaluation of higher education research performance conducted in 1992, involving institutions such as University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, University College London, University of Edinburgh, and University of Manchester. The exercise informed funding allocations by bodies including the Higher Education Funding Council for England, Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, University Grants Committee (Hong Kong) and influenced policy discussions in contexts involving Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Kenneth Clarke, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Background and purpose

The initiative followed earlier assessments like the Research Selectivity Exercise 1986 and arose amid debates involving Tomlinson Report-era reforms, the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, and pressures from stakeholders such as the Association of Commonwealth Universities and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Central actors included funding councils such as the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and agencies comparable to the National Institutes of Health model debated by figures like Sir Keith Joseph and Sir William Waldegrave. Objectives paralleled international trends exemplified by initiatives in France, Germany, Japan, United States Department of Education discussions, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports, aiming to link performance metrics with grants for institutions like the London School of Economics and the University of Glasgow.

Methodology and assessment procedures

Assessment procedures adapted frameworks referenced by agencies such as the Research Excellence Framework precursor groups, panels chaired by academics drawn from institutions including Imperial College London, King's College London, University of Sheffield, University of Birmingham, and University of Leeds. Submissions were structured by units of assessment reflecting departments at Queen Mary University of London, Newcastle University, University of St Andrews, University of Warwick, and Durham University, with peer review processes influenced by models used at the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society. Panels applied criteria similar to standards debated at the European Commission and practices observed at the Australian Research Council and the Canada Research Chairs Program, examining outputs from scholars such as those affiliated with Trinity College Dublin and the University of Aberdeen. Procedures involved documentation of outputs, personnel, and resources in formats comparable to submissions to the British Academy and the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

Results and institutional impact

Outcomes reallocated quality-related research funding that affected budgets at institutions including University of Bath, University of Exeter, Lancaster University, Birkbeck, University of London, and Royal Holloway, University of London. The exercise influenced strategic planning at colleges such as St George's, University of London, The Open University, Goldsmiths, University of London, Cardiff University, and Swansea University, and informed hiring and departmental mergers at University of Portsmouth and University of Roehampton. Funding shifts resonated with policy discussions involving ministers like Malcolm Rifkind and civil servants connected to the Department for Education and Science (UK), while comparisons with allocation mechanisms in Sweden, Netherlands, and Italy entered discourse among leaders at the Russell Group and the 1994 Group.

Controversies and criticisms

Critics included academic bodies such as the University and College Union, commentators associated with Times Higher Education, and figures from research-intensive departments at University of Bristol and University of Southampton, who argued the exercise favored certain publication cultures found at Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press-affiliated scholars. Debates invoked examples from judicial and policy arenas like the Human Rights Act 1998 era and comparisons to evaluation systems used by the National Science Foundation and the Max Planck Society. Concerns raised by scholars at King's College London, Queen's University Belfast, and University of Liverpool centered on perceived biases affecting interdisciplinary units, smaller institutions such as Roehampton University and specialist schools like Royal College of Art, and impacts on early-career researchers who sought fellowships from bodies like the Leverhulme Trust and the Economic and Social Research Council.

Legacy and influence on subsequent exercises

The 1992 assessment shaped later exercises including the Research Assessment Exercise 1996 and the development of the Research Excellence Framework, influencing governance at institutions such as University of Southampton, University of Nottingham, University of York, University of Surrey, and Keele University. Its methods informed international benchmarking compared with systems in New Zealand, Finland, and South Korea, and affected the strategies of funders like the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Policymakers including Gordon Brown-era advisers and committees connected to the Council for Science and Technology drew on lessons for later reforms impacting universities such as University of Leicester, University of Reading, and University of Stirling.

Category:Higher education in the United Kingdom