My original comment was occasioned by some experience at the sharp end
of the RAE system. I started teaching at the West London Institute of
Higher Education (grade 2 in 96, now defunct), Brunel (3a this time),
then the London School of Economics where I went in with Geography (5)
and most of my colleagues in DESTIN were in political science (5*). Now
I am at Arizona, USA where there is no score (but a national informal
ranking of the PhD granting Departments does apply). So I've seen the
range.
I certainly don't begrudge any Department getting a good score. The
system, but not the allocation of monies, was fairer this time than in
96. Many worthy Departments rose in the rankings, and some less worthy
ones fell. I do begrudge a) any insinuation that this is now a fair
system, no matter what the professoriate on the Panel may feel about the
procedures used - the fact that my friends at Brunel might not get any
cash this time due to changing HEFCE rules and commitments to higher
ranked places, is manifestly unfair, and I am still convinced that
'applied' work was not valued as much as it should be. b) demeaning
lower ranked Departments, some of whom have excellent people and
researchers, and carry these rankings like iron shackles for the next 4
years, possibly emperilling their futures at a time when the UK needs
every Geography Department it can keep in business and c) the attitudes
that treat this as, somehow, an opportunity for competition - in fact
it could be entirely subverted by more active cooperation between
Departments, rather than pitting one against another. How about if all
the Geography Depts in the UK RAEs went in as one unit, and shared the
spoils? The system would have been a laughing stock.
I very much enjoyed working in all sorts of different departments. When
you have not much research culture, helping to create it is fun and
challenging. I remember the shock on the face of the Institute
accountant when I presented him with the paperwork for our Department's
first ever ESRC award! The nonsubmission of colleagues not prepared to
do research in such places is regrettable - the other strategy is for
the Dept. to forego the RAE completely, of course. But on the other
hand, where you have an overwhelming research culture, like at LSE, the
buzz from doing research is actually less - everybody has a great
article or book to share, and grants are ubiquitous. Yours are a drop in
the ocean. So, doing good teaching in this environment is also enjoyable
and much enjoyed by students who have a rigid teaching and assessment
system, and some professors who would much rather be at home writing.
In sum, being proud of your unit's performance should not regress into
disdain for others, and if we are going to attach prizes to this points
system, let them be allocated really fairly.
The binary divide in British Higher Education is, as in 1996, still
around the corner. Here in the US, academic freedom does not permit
aggressive policing of individual research performance to comply with
assessment exercises or anything else. Still not sure after 15 years
which system works better and more intervention in the US case would
often be welcome, but I generally find that whatever system you are in,
it is not usually as bad as you think it might be, and it might even get
better (unless your Department gets closed down!). It's the work itself
that counts, plus your Departmental ambience, not the RAE system that
tries to assess it.
I would, like previous writers, like to know what people think.
Simon
|