UK Government Releases Overall Parameters for Its Research Assessment Exercise Post 2008. (December 8, 2006)

Julie Bishop, Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training.

 Research in science, engineering and technology (SET) will not be subject to peer review to assess funding after 2008, according to a statement issued by the UK government yesterday.

So while the Australian Coalition government of John Howard presses ahead with its development of a Research Quality Framework^{1, 2}  modelled on a system being discarded by Great Britain and made even more cumbersome by its attempt to judge research economic impact apart from research quality to develop an amalgamated score on which to apportion block research grant funding, Britain's Blair Labor government has determined that all subjects will be assessed by a system of metrics - statistical indicators, such as the number of times research is cited by other academics and the amount of research income a department earns.

However, in the case of the arts and humanities research will also undergo a "lighter touch" peer review while subjects in the sciences, engineering and technology as well as medicine will not.

"Lighter touch" remains to be defined.

In response to the publication of the British Government's plans Philip Diamond, the assistant director of science and education for the Institute of Physics (IoP) in the UK, told The Guardian that the IoP was "surprised and disappointed... [That] the quality of research at university physics departments will now be judged on data such as how much money they receive in grants rather than the quality of their results and papers after research is complete. The institute does not agree with this method, as stated in our evidence to the consultation on the RAE. The only system that will have the respect and support of the science community is peer-review of research.

    "A metrics-based system that uses data such as research income to assess a university department gives no indication of the quality of research undertaken. Using this system will only encourage expensive research and high volume, rather than high quality, research. The only output measure of quality to which the announcement refers is bibliometrics, which measures the impact a research paper has in the science community. It is not clear to us that this is a robust measure."

As a response The UK education secretary, Alan Johnson, said, "The response to our consultation was helpful and we have heeded it. The outcome we are announcing keeps quality at the heart of the assessment process, whilst reducing the administrative burden on universities."

He made no mention of attempting to assess the "impact" of research.

Should the Australian government persist in forcing an ill conceived and ill planned RQF on the Australian universities, the expense and contortions now being undergone in Great Britain will be mirrored here. And they haven't tried to assess "impact".

And as an example of what is planned, note what just one of the 13 panels proposed by the RQF Development Advisory Group will be expected to comparatively assess.

Surely you're joking Ms Bishop!