Les,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leslie Carr
> Sent: 18 February 2008 12:20
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: RAE/REF research
>
> On 18 Feb 2008, at 12:00, John Smith wrote:
>
> > Would it not be better, now we have new forms of measurement, to
> ask
> > what these measurements themselves are telling us about research
> > quality or value or importance or whatever dimensions we choose
> to
> > measure it on, and build a better (fairer?) form of assessment?
> Or perhaps, before we change horses, we ought to work out what it
> is
> that constitutes fair assessment in the current system, try to
> target
> it through our new set of metrics, and check that we got it right.
Over a decade ago I asked "What is the purpose of academic journals?" Well maybe we should now be asking "What is the purpose of research assessment?".
Is it to identify high quality research/researchers?
Is it to allocate money fairly?
What happens if these two requirements require different metrics or differently tuned/weighted metrics?
I understand why the new metrics need to 'prove themselves' by showing they can consistently match the outcomes of the old accepted system. Yet it seems a waste of these new metrics if instead of being used to explore new forms of assessment they are restricted to reproduce the outcomes of the old measuring system. Imagine setting up an experiment to explore a new theory that included in its design an implicit assumption that the old theory was true.
Regards,
John Smith.
|