Revamping the RAE Continues to Cause Angst in UK Academe. (November 13, 2006)

     While plans to change the UK's labour-intensive Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) after 2008 have wide support in Britain's universities there are serious concerns that the government's preferred option - based entirely on research income and excluding peer review is an appropriate alternative.

Meanwhile the Australia's Research Quality Framework Development Advisory Group chaired by Chief Scientist, Jim Peacock, continues to struggle to come up with an augmented, acceptable version of the RAE for Australia, let alone one that's actually useful.

Universities UK (UUK), the umbrella group representing Britain's vice-chancellors in a submission to the government warns, "If Britain's strong research record is not to be jeopardised, time needs to be taken to ensure that a robust successor to the RAE, which has the support of the academic community, is developed."

The president of UUK, Drummond Bone, said: "The case for fundamental reform is overwhelming and there is no doubt that the next RAE [beginning 2008] will be the last. But the government's proposals do not offer a sound way forward.

"We have major concerns about the exclusive use of income measures and believe that other quantitative indicators should be used. Peer involvement - which is absent from the government's plans - will be needed to select the measures and monitor their use.

"We believe that the next RAE should inform funding decisions until 2012, giving ample time to develop a new assessment method that will provide a secure basis for maintaining Britain's record for research excellence. Universities UK intends to work with the funding bodies to develop a viable alternative and publishes this briefing as a start to this process."

And the UUK's submission states, "The effort involved in transforming the system would, of course, need to be proportionate to the gains. The need to lighten the burden will also need to be weighed against the requirement for a robust system that is fit for purpose and has the confidence of the academic community."

It also makes the point, "Cost reduction is not the only driver for change, and the current review provides a crucial opportunity to examine how the problems associated with the RAE can be addressed," and concludes, "The decision to proceed with RAE2008 and the need to ensure that the outcome informs funding for a period of up to four years provide ample time to ensure that a new assessment system is designed and fully assessed before it is adopted.

"Although the RAE needs to be reformed it has been an important factor in enhancing university research performance over the past 20 years and in enabling the UK to maintain its relative international standing in research. It is vital that the successor arrangements continue to support and enhance university research productivity.

"Universities UK believes that time will be needed to consider the full implications of each of the options and that we should work closely with the funding councils to develop a new mechanism. This will ensure that a cost effective metrics-based system, balanced by appropriate peer involvement, is agreed as a sustainable successor to the RAE."

While the UUK asserts that the RAE "has been an important factor in enhancing university research performance over the past 20 years" it, like all others who make that claim, in reality have no conclusive data in support, because the enhanced performance is closely correlated to the provision of increased resources.

And it ought to be noted that the pre-eminent  nation in research is the United States with no RAE or RQF -- how come?