SIGMETRICS Digest - 30 Mar 2006 to 31 Mar 2006 (#2006-44)

[David Watkins]

RAE et al.....


For me the basic problem with the RAE was an unintended consequence. The
government's problem was that of 'big science'. HEFCE's desire was to
concentrate funding for expensive, scientific / medical / engineering
research in a few institutions. Probably a good idea. However, it swept up
all the other disciplines, too, into a one size fits all system. Thus the
lone researcher who can do good work in the history stacks and local
archives - if given sufficient time - was treated like the guy who needs
CERN time and a cast of hundreds to check out his/her theory. That is just
bizarre. In the humanities and social sciences the results have been poor
for academe since the basic premise was wrong.

Switching the whole system to a metrics based one merely continues this and
distorts scholarly good practice outside the sciences; we know that
publication practices, citation behaviour etc are quite different in
non-science disciplines in the absence of a distortion like RAE. What is
needed is a funding regime which gives scholarly space-time and base-line
funding to all academics - possibly working on the basis of a notionally
equal 4 way split between teaching/teaching
preparation/administration/research. Those who needed no special facilities
could do good work on this basis as they always did traditionally.The rest
of HEFCE's research funds would go to the Research Councils. Other
academics who needed large scale funding / facilities would use their
'quartile' to work up proposals for substantial funding from the Research
Councils and others. This could - but needn't  - involve buying out more of
their own admin - or even teaching - time. Teaching everywhere would be
enhanced since few established academics would have / need non-teaching
roles (evaluation of the whole scholarly role internally, with a level
playing field) and the costs of external evaluation would be restricted to
the project level, which is the most appropriate one. There would be no
institutional 'halo' to support underperformers, but good scholars working
in isolation or in small / peripheral institutions would not be
discriminated against, and recruitment could return to the assessment of
academic institutional need rather than just looking for 'four alpha
publications' and to hell with the other academic skills and interests we
would all favour seeing in a new colleague.


************************************************
Professor David Watkins
Postgraduate Research Centre
Southampton Business School
East Park Terrace
Southampton SO14 0RH

David.Watkins at solent.ac.uk
 023 80 319610 (Tel)
+44 23 80 31 96 10 (Tel)

02380 33 26 27 (fax)
+44 23 80 33 26 27 (fax)