Breadcrumbs
- Home
- Research staff
- Research staff blog
- Data on Researcher Submissions in RAE
Data on Researcher Submissions in RAE
12 November 2009
By Liam O'Hare
The issue of researcher submission in the RAE has been of interest to me for a while now. The position of research fellow has changed over the years. It is no longer an apprenticeship for lecturers but a career in its own right. Therefore, I feel strongly that researchers should be given credit in the REF for the work the do every day and not all rewards and recognition should go to lecturing staff. Furthermore, I think standard researcher submission in the RAE would be the single most important driver of positive change for researchers' career development.
Regardless of these issues I was thinking surely universities are not maximising their resources if they only return their lecturing staff in the RAE and similar. So in an effort to explore this (being a nerd!) I inputted numbers of Research fellow returns and assessment outcomes for 8 Russell group unis as a test case ( Oxford, Cambridge, Manchester, Southampton, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Bristol Queen's University Belfast). There were some interesting findings that I thought you all might like to see.
Key findings
No.s of researchers submitted +vely correlates with four (.27) and three (.236) stars and -vely with 2 (-.26) and 1 (-.352) stars.
Depts Submitting any research fellows average star scores on RAE were significantly higher; 2.86 Stars compared to 2.63 Stars
Submitting researchers or not was the best predictor of average score when no.s of RAs in the dept. and FTEs was controlled for ( b = .322)
Overall, it is interesting to see how many research fellows were returned in these different unis. With Oxbridge leading the way with the greatest number of returns...
I know my school and research centre is very keen to support and submit individual resaerchers in the REF.
I think this discussion should be kept going on this issue and possibly some formal approach should be made to the REF panel in their consultation.
I also welcome other thoughts/inquiries on the data etc...
Cheers,
Liam
l.ohare@qub.ac.uk
Chris Thomson12 November 2009 at 05:06 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I maybe wrong, but I thought the reason that RA's were not returned in the RAE was because only grant holders (fellows in most case would therefore qualify) and staff funded by the block grant were eligible. This was because the assessment was to work out the level of the block grant awarded. In my mind there is a good reason not to include RAs in the national calculation, as it could potentially allow departments to buy in talent cheaply for a short period of time. And we know they did it with academic positions, so I'd expect them to do it with RAs which would just be exploitative. That said I can see the benefit in calculating the level of RA achievement may in some cases be useful internally to help guide career progression and so on.
Chris Thomson12 November 2009 at 05:11 PM
permalinkreport this comment
PS. My understanding of the decision on who to return from within the staff for the last RAE was essentially down university strategy. The problem was the funding formula (ie how the number of stars turned into size of block grant) was not disclosed before the deadline, so it was a guessing game, would you get a larger grant for fewer higher quality returns or more lower quality returns. My impression was that there were both differences of opinion between universities and disciplines hence the disparity seen.
Matthew Salois16 November 2009 at 04:41 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Liam, the statistics you posted are interesting, especially the first set regarding the correlation between the number of researchers and the RAE rating. While I would expect to see the RAE increase with the number of researchers submitted, the negative correlation for 1 and 2 star is striking. Perhaps 3 and 4 star institutions are more efficient with their use of research staff. Chris, you also make a good point regarding the inclusion of research staff in the national calculation. But perhaps it might also give an incentive to those institutions to retain the talent they have rather than see them relocate to another institution and inflate a competitor's rating. One can only hope!
Chris Thomson16 November 2009 at 05:04 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Matthew, I can see RA inclusion being positive if the assessment becomes essentially continuous. However this would cause a disparity in funding that would either award larger block grants to universities that currently have more research staff on the reactive grants. This would make it desirable to maximise the number of staff on grant funded contracts, the universities can then spend all the block money on something else - and get even more of it. So your position maybe a bit more secure but the pressure to grant chase throughout your academic career becomes evermore motivated, and most of the rewards end up with other people... Personally I think it is best for staff to be either block grant funded or reactive grant funded, but for their "performance" to feed into either system not both. Thus career researchers should be the only ones chasing the reactive grants, and we should all be allowed, encouraged, and recognised for our achievements in that system, instead of the *eminent* professors that many of the RAs do most of the research work of.