160 likes | 308 Views
Research Context and the RAE John Saunders Head of School, Aston Business School. IDEAS Factory 23/24 October 2006. General principles. RAE: Research Assessment Exercise Research quality over period 2001–07 to be assessed Criteria and working methods finalised and published
E N D
Research Context and the RAEJohn SaundersHead of School, Aston Business School IDEAS Factory 23/24 October 2006
General principles • RAE: Research Assessment Exercise • Research quality over period 2001–07 to be assessed • Criteria and working methods finalised and published • Grouping of sub-panels into main panel areas • Affecting funding from 2009-10
Some history • Previous proper RAEs in 1992, 1996, 2001 • Applied a single rating to the whole of a submission • 2001: each output rated as • International, National or Sub-national quality • 5* implies • >50% output of International standard • Very little output rated below National level • Grade applies to all staff submitted, however:
Main differences from 2001 • R monies 2001 • Same amount for all staff in department • Leads to cliff edge funding • R monies post-2008 • No cliff edge • Profile funding • Main panel I • Accounting & finance • Economics & econometrics • Business & management Studies • Library & information management • Staffing rules: no overlap period
RAE 2008 quality profile • Quality level: 4*, 3*, 2*, 1*, unclassified • Unclassified = zero stars • Percentage of research activity in each category • Based on FTE staff submitted • No requirement to state % submitted • To apply to • research output, • the research environment • indicators of esteem & impact
RAE 2008: calculation of R monies e.g. Univ of North Midlands enters 50 FTE staff activity *The sub-panel will not know what the R values will be
RAE 2008 quality criteria for outputs * To knowledge, theory, policy or practice
When is RAE 2008? • 2007 • 31st July: End of assessment period for research income & research student data • 31st October: Census date (staff included) • 30th November: Closing date for submissions • 31st December: End of publication period (cut off date for research output) • December 2008: results published • Academic year 2008-9 funding
Denise Osborne Jane Broadbent Ray Paul Structure of main panel I 34: Economics & econometrics (David Greenaway, Nottingham) 35: Accounting & finance (Andy Stark, MBS) Main panel I: Chair David Otley 36: Business & management (Mike Pidd, Lancaster) 37: Library and information mgt (John Feather, Loughborough)
Main panel I: FTE staff (%) submitted across the 4 areas (2001)
Research outputs: 4 per person (70%) Research environment (20%) Esteem & impact indicators (10%) Quality profile Elements of assessment e.g. Research income PhD students Staff development Weighted and aggregated across each submission
Research outputs • For established staff: 4 per person expected • Unless work is exceptional • Or time out from research (apply pro rata rule) • Part-timers (apply pro rata rule) • Multi-authored work: avoid joint submission from same department unless work is exceptional • Different for early career researchers • Should flag up (possibly) • Exceptional work (e.g. potential 4* but not in top-ranked outlet) • Early career researchers • People who’ve had time out or part-time (equal opps)
Early career researchers • Central RAE definition • “Entered the academic profession on employment terms that qualified them for submission to RAE 2008 as Category A staff on or after 1st August 2003.” • Submission requirements: Business & Mgt • Appointed 1/8/03 to 31/7/05: normally 2 outputs • Appointed 1/8/05 or later: normally 1 output • Working papers may be submitted • The denominator will be adjusted so there is no point submitting more than this
After RAE 2008: Dual funding system for research HEFCE R monies Based on RAE Pays for research time & infrastructure Other research income, including research councils Pays for research projects & programmes Research income
Future research funding • RAE 2008 and before • Peer assessed • Research outputs (70%) • Research environment (20%) • Esteem & impact indicators (10%) • Beyond RAE 2008 • Rationale: To use a less expensive method • Motive: To concentrate research into a few “world leading” institutions • Metrics. These could be: • Research Council income • Broader definition of research income • Citation indices • All dangerous for Marketing!