Heft 1 + 2 / 2011 - UniversitätsVerlagWebler

Dokumentation
Fo
Tabelle 1: Sub-panel 9
agenda which is certainly at variance with Welsh priorities.
Whereas in England, HEFCE is allocating funding
using a formula involving an exceedingly steep weighting
towards “internationally leading” research, here in
Wales the equivalent body HEFCW is resisting the urge
to concentrate research cash so heavily according to such
a doubtful measure of research quality. And don’t get me
started on the so-called “impact” measures. All I can say
about them is that Kafka would have been proud.
The Welsh Assembly Government has recently taken steps
to protect Welsh students against the effects of Higher
Education cuts imposed by Westminster. However, there
will be substantial cuts in resource to Welsh universities
in order to pay for this. At the same time as making “efficiency
savings”, as is appropriate for the age of austerity,
we’re also being forced to participate in a monstrously
wasteful bureaucratic exercise of little relevance to the
needs or aspirations of Welsh universities.I think there’s
a strong case for HEFCW to show a bit of real independence
and withdraw from the REF altogether.
Reffing
(Posted in Science Politics with tags RAE, REF, Research
Assessment Exercise, Research Excellence Framework on
September 28, 2009 by telescoper)
No sooner has the dust settled on the 2008 Research
Assessment Exercise (RAE) when the Higher Education
Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has tabled its proposals
for a new system called the Research Excellence
Framework (REF) in a 56-page consultation document
that you can download and peruse at your leisure.
I won’t try to give a complete account of the new
system except to say that apart from the change of
acronym there won’t be much different. Many of us
hoped that the new framework would involve a lighter
touch than the RAE, so we could actually get on
with research instead of filling in forms all our lives. Fat
chance. You can call me cynical if you like, but I think
it’s obvious that once you set up a monstrous bureaucratical
nightmare like the RAE it is almost impossible
to kill it off. Things like this gather their own momentum
and become completely self-serving. The apparatus
of research assessment no longer exists to fulfil a
particular purpose. It exists because it exists. It might
be useful however to summarise the main changes:
1. The number of Units of Assessment and sub-panels
is to be reduced from 67 to 30 and the number of
main assessment panels from 15 to 4. This move is
bound to prove controversial as it will clearly reduce
the number of specialists involved in the quality appraisal
side of things. However, the last RAE produced
clear anomalies in the assessment carried out
by different panels: physics overall did very poorly
compared to other disciplines, for example. Having
fewer panels might make it easier to calibrate different
subjects. Might.
2. In REF the overall assessments are going to be based
on three elements: research output (60%); impact
(25%); and environment (15%). In the last RAE each
panel was free to vary the relative contribution of
different components to the overall score. Although
the “research output” category is similar to the last
RAE, it is now proposed to include citation measures
in the overall assessment. Officially, that is. It’s
an open secret that panel members did look at citations
last time anyway. Citation impact will however
be used only for certain science and engineering
subjects. “Impact” is a new element and its introduction
is in line with the government’s agenda to
pump research funds into things which will generate
wealth, so this measure will probably shaft fundamental
physics. “Environment” includes things like
postgraduate numbers, research funding and the
like; this is also similar to the RAE.
3. A roughly similar number of experts will be involved
as in RAE 2008 – so it will be similarly expensive to
run.
4. The consultation document asks whether the number
of outputs submitted per person should be reduced
from four to three, and also whether “substantive
outputs” (whatever they are) should be “doubleweighted”.
5. The results will be presented in terms of “profiles” as
in 2008, with the percentage of activity at each level
being given.
6. The consultation also suggests honing the description
of “world-leading” (4*) and “internationally excellent”
(3*) to achieve greater discrimination at the top end
54 Fo 1+2/2011