The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is the system that evaluates the quality of research ongoing in UK higher education institutions. The REF is the replacement for the RAE, the major difference being that ‘impact’ will contribute up to 25% of this grading. The addition of impact has been controversial as it is not clearly defined how this will be measured. Due to this the new Tory government has said it will put the REF on hold (it is due to go ahead in 2012).
The assessment of research output, research environment and indicators of esteem determine the rating of the institution and ultimately funding. Universities put forward 'research active staff' (an area itself of controversy and defined by the universities themselves) as part of this assessment.
Although I understand that some method of allocating funding does need to exist, I am not sure how well the impact of this assessment sits with me and how it will shape the path I take as an early career researcher. This process of assessment has been heavily criticised being deemed responsible for job losses, demoralisation, the undermining of teaching/ research relationship... One problem is that due to this new pseudo-corporate structure, university departments that do not have the same facilities as a more established department will be subject to a lower rating, struggle to attract researchers, struggle to make impact and overall, receive less funding.
Although I understand that some method of allocating funding does need to exist, I am not sure how well the impact of this assessment sits with me and how it will shape the path I take as an early career researcher. This process of assessment has been heavily criticised being deemed responsible for job losses, demoralisation, the undermining of teaching/ research relationship... One problem is that due to this new pseudo-corporate structure, university departments that do not have the same facilities as a more established department will be subject to a lower rating, struggle to attract researchers, struggle to make impact and overall, receive less funding.
The government is reluctant to spend money on research that does not have an economic impact. Of course, it is perfectly understandable that the government want to know what they are putting their/ our money into. Yet research that has a demonstrable economic goal will be lapped up by the private sector and this approach may also quash the serendipitous results that have been the muscles of research impact. Is this method of assessment also killing off curiosity? Frankie Boyle joked about scientists investigating how many fruit pastilles it took to choke a kestrel but academic freedoms are being limited. Research that may not give us any economic payback but further our understanding may become redundant. My romantic view of universities and research is slowly dwindling, maybe I'm just growing up? I hope not.
I do have sympathy for the arts and humanities. Science and engineering can prove themselves a lot easier in this system (We will cure bunions vs we will give you a history of them.) As much as I voice my fears and concerns, I struggle to offer a good solution that satisfies all.There is much more and many other issues to discuss with this subject.
We need to give our academics more credit, however, and not think the end is completely nigh. I have never known a research budget to go strictly to its grant proposal and this trick of juggling funding has been the means of a lot of successful research.
No comments:
Post a Comment