 |
 |
The world has changed. Until 2008 we had a system where the best 20 departments (roughly) - the old 5/5*s - were receiving about £35,000 p.a. for each research active person in QR funding. The next best 20 received about £11,000 per person. The rest (about 30 depts) got nothing. RAE 2008 showed excellence in a wide range of institutions. Under the new allocation from HEFCE, most depts will be receiving about £10,000 per submitted person, increasing with higher ratings. In only about the top 10 depts will funding exceed £20,000 per person. QR funding is much less concentrated than before -- and I think SPA members have generally argued for that. But this will inevitably mean that some large successful departments will lose significant sums of money (including most of the old-5s); some gain large amounts of money (some of the old-4s) and many gain significant or modest sums (everyone else). Redistribution - although those with the most funding before do keep the largest shares. I think this is the aim of the RAE process, this time around. Adjustment to the new world may be painful in some institutions. Some of the gainers can argue that their research performance is overdue such recognition. Hope that helps describe .... (and apologies I don't have the figures for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland). Steve McKay ________________________________ From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists on behalf of [log in to unmask] Sent: Sun 15/03/2009 11:47 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: RAE results - funding outcomes Dear Simon Prideaux could you or anyone else please elaborate? In what way 'these figures [...] make a mockery of the RAE'? best regards TP Simon Prideaux wrote: > Sorry, > but if these figures are correct then it makes a mockery of the RAE. > > Dear all > > HEFCE have now released figures for the amounts of RAE money derived > from the Social Work and Social Policy submissions. Details here: > http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/funding/QRFunding/ > > The good news, for the discipline, was that the funding for SW/SPA > overall has risen a fair bit, reflecting the higher average quality > identified by the panel. > > The attached PDF (only 12K!) extracts the key money figures for each > department. > > Well done, or sorry, as appropriate. > > Steve McKay >