Dear Colleagues
As you may know, the funding councils are conducting a review of
research assessment in higher education. They have just launched
a consultation exercise and submissions to this are required by 29
November.
The SPA executive has established a sub-group to consider its
response. The probable membership of this group is myself, Linda
Bauld, Gary Craig, Nick Ellison, Tony Fitzpatrick, Caroline
Glendinning and Mark Hyde. The group is anxious to consult with
the SPA membership as fully as possible, although it recognises
that many members will also wish to respond directly to the
funding councils.
The purpose of this message is to invite members to email the
working group, either via this mailbase or via
[log in to unmask] Please do so by 11 November in order to
give the working group adequate time to draft a collective response.
PLEASE look at the funding council's document (accessed
through http//:www.hefce.ac.uk/Research/RAReview/invit.htm)
before emailing the working group. This is not to rule any issues
out of order - the docunent includes an open section headed 'Have
We Missed Anything?' and also invites respondents to 'challenge
any underlying assumptions they discern in our presentation of the
issues'. It is, however, important to be aware of the questions that
are asked by the funding councils.
It may also be helpful to bear in mind two other points.
1. It is widely believed that there is a strong lobby to move to
quantitative forms of assessment. One argument, for example, is
that the existing distribution of QR in science/engineering etc is
very close to the distribution of research grants. It follows that
simply basing QR on research monies would produce a similar
outcome to the present system without the time, cost etc of the
panels. Advocates of such a system acknowledge that it would
have to be modified for the arts and social sciences to allow for the
'lone scholar', and the SPA will have to think about whether it
wants to oppose quantitative measures full stop, or set out a wide
range of checks, balances to moderate the outcomes from them.
2. Another critical issue may be the allocation of funding between
subjects. In 2001 the amount going to each subject reflected the
number of researchers submitted. This meant that the relatively low
number of 5 and 5* units produced a more selective allocation in
social policy but did not reduce the size of the social policy pot.
This time around the consultation document asks if the
assessment outcomes should 'determine the proportion of the
available funding directed towards each subject'.
Best wishes
Alan Deacon
SPA Chair
|