No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Using metrics to allocate research funds: initial response to the Government's consultation proposals
Abstract
Section 1: Introduction 1. In his Budget speech in March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced major reforms to the way research is assessed and funded. He announced that the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) would be discontinued, and in an associated document ('Science and Innovation Investment Framework: Next Steps', referred to here as 'Next Steps') a consultation was promised on the Government's preferred option: replacing the RAE with performance indicators based on research funding ('metrics'). 2. In April HEPI published a report on the Government's proposals ('Using Metrics To Allocate Research Funds', referred to here as 'Using Metrics'). Three months after 'Next Steps', the Government has now published its consultation proposals under the title 'Reform of Higher Education Research Assessment and Funding' (referred to here as 'the consultation document'). 3. The first thing to be said about the consultation document is that it contains just 25 pages, fewer than 10 of which are devoted to discussion of the proposals. It contains no analysis of the problems associated with the RAE or the metrics alternatives, and provides no basis for policy decisions. It asks which of 5 metrics-based models is preferred, but as will be discussed below all suffer from similar flaws and there is no basis in the document for making a judgement between metrics and peer review.
... The Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) paper (Sastry and Bekhradnia 2006) looking at the consequences of the five models argues that the proposal to make funding dependent on winning research grants would not only increase costs dramatically but damage intellectual freedom by making universities dependent on major funders. (MacLeod 2006) In their view, the proposed models would damage the research base since it will: provide an incentive to undertake contract and grant funded research over curiositydriven research that does not have a customer divert QR funding to provide an effective subsidy to private providers of research funds drive down the prices charged for contract and grant research, underpinning the sustainability of the UK's research base provide incentives to universities to focus on staff with a track record of bringing in grant and contract income, at the expense of others greatly increase the transaction costs of securing research funds greatly increase competition in the already highly competitive research environment further separate teaching from research. ...
... There are sizeable costs associated with preparing research for assessment exercises. Sastry and Bekhradnia (2006c) note a rejection rate of approximately 70% of research grant applications to research councils, while acceptance rates may be as low as 20% (THES 2006b). According to Tribe (2004a: 72), one of the strengths of tourism studies is that it is attractive to students with 10,500 undergraduates and 700 postgraduates registered on programmes in the UK. ...
A major academic debating point in recent times has been the impact of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) on the higher education sector in the UK. Ex-post analyses of the RAE's effects have appeared but this paper argues for a more forward-looking perspective. RAE 2008 is different to previous exercises, set as it is amid a period of significant reform and turbulence in the sector. Rather than exclusively dwelling on the past, it is necessary to explore how tourism studies and tourism geography will fare in the new era. While there has been transparency in the dissemination of change and much is known about what is to come, several important ‘unknowns’ remain, not least how several reforms will function together. An attempt is made to identify likely changes and to map their potential impacts on the future nature and practice of tourism scholarship.
Nous proposons et expérimentons un modèle dédié à l'analyse des politiques de financement de la recherche capable d'accompagner un décideur dans l’évaluation de sa politique. Le modèle repose ainsi sur un mécanisme original qui s'intéresse à la notion de système d'innovation dans sa globalité. Sa conception est par ailleurs le résultat de la cartographie du système français actuel et de l’analyse de ses limites. Notre modèle est ainsi construit avec l'ambition de « re » placer le décideur au cœur du processus de décision redonnant à l'Orientation politique un rôle moteur dans la conception des politiques publiques de Recherche.En partenariat avec la région Centre-Val de Loire, nous avons testé notre modèle. Ce travail a ainsi mis en évidence un comportement d'adaptation des opérateurs de recherche. Nous en déduisons qu'il est possible, sans perte de légitimité, d’orienter au moins une partie d’un système.Enfin nous mobilisons des outils informatiques pour concevoir un modèle d’aide à la décision qui représente le plus fidèlement possible la politique régionale en matière de financement de la recherche. Nous terminons en faisant évoluer notre modèle afin de concevoir un outil d'aide à la décision utilisé par les équipes de la région pour les accompagner dans le choix des projets à financer.
When entering the research world, Early Career Researchers (ECRs) may encounter difficulties building a good reputation for their research, its quality and the research results. Open access is the movement that could assist ECRs to: (a) widely disseminate their scholarly outputs, (b) demonstrate the research and societal impact of their work and, (c) organise online research portfolios that can be accessed by all researchers, as well as prospective employers.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.