News & Views item - November 2007

 

Britain's Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) Continues to Tie Itself Into Knots Over the RAE. (November 25, 2007)

Natasha Gilbert reporting in The Guardian a couple of days ago gives an update on the machinations at the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) as they try to simplify assessing the quality of university research prior to allocating more than £1bn a year of the funds at its disposal.

 

Rama Thirunamachandran, Hefce's director of research, told Ms Gilbert: "The RAE has been successful over the years at driving up standards, but it has also become more complex. It is fair to say that it is now showing diminishing returns - the burden for the sector and Hefce is considerable. We think in the science base, a metrics based system is workable, will produce a good result and reduce the burden quite considerably."

 

In fact there is no sound evidence that the RAE per se is responsible for improving the quality of research at Britain's  universities even though the Hefce is loathed to admit it.

 

The latest statement from the council's director is a wonderful exercise in bureaucratic double speak:

The debate the sector gets into quickly is peer review versus metrics. This is a false dichotomy. Articles are peer reviewed before they are published in journals that are then cited by thousands of people reflecting the importance of the work. Grants are also peer reviewed. And postgraduate and doctoral students are externally examined. So there is peer review in all three quantitative indicators in the basket.

 So why have additional metrics?

Hefce has proposed establishing expert panels to advise on the use of metrics to reassure concerned academics Mr Thirunamachandran told The Guardian.

 

In England we are proposing to have expert panels who will advise on the weighting of the metrics for subject areas and whether there are any anomalies or patterns emerging. It is very important that the new system has the level of confidence in the academic community that the current system does. With that in mind we have said the panels will have a role in advising Hefce. We are open to hearing from the community what they have to say about this.

 

While the council's consultations close on February 14, the Scottish and Welsh funding councils are carrying out parallel consultations on introducing a metrics system, but how each uses the results to slice up the funding pot between universities may differ. That should help simplify matters no end.

 

According to The Guardian, Universities UK said: "There are a number of issues the sector needs to consider when responding, so it's crucial the academic community engages with the consultation process. Universities UK will also consult its members on their views. Any new system will need to be robust and able to inspire confidence among the research community."

 

Meanwhile the simplifying concept of allowing for appropriate on-costs to accompany the peer reviewed grants is simply ignored.

 

And in Australia while the change in government has removed the Nelson/Bishop concept of an impossibly cumbersome RQF, the incoming Labor government of Kevin Rudd has yet to indicate that it will free the ARC and NHMRC so that they can couple their grants with significant on-costs. Concomitantly the federal government must strive to overcome the destruction of university infrastructure and understaffing fostered by the Coalition since 1996 as a long term priority.