Who Rules Research Commands the University: A Comparison of Research Assessment Schemes in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands

10.6197/EHE.2008.0201.01

Don F. Westerheijden

Research Assessment ； Quality Assessment ； Governance of Higher Education

Evaluation in Higher Education

2卷1期（2008 / 06 / 01）

1 - 34

英文

This paper compares the research assessment schemes in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, which are diametrically opposed in methods and approach. The main question is if the different approaches lead to different impacts on universities. It will be argued that the UK's RAE leads to a higher degree of concentration of research funds than the Dutch research evaluations. Other consequences are quite similar, however: concentration on publishable research (”short-termism”, ”salami publishing”), mobility on the academic labour market, knock-on effects of research assessments ratings on grant-earning capacity, etc. Through research assessment schemes, governments may be pushing higher education harder towards research, but especially university managers have gained an important position to govern the academic heartland.

1. Adams, J.(2002).Research Assessment in the UK.Science,296(5569),805.
2. Allison, G. T.(1971).Essence of decision Explaining the cuban missile crisis.Boston:Little, Brown & Co.
3. Association of University Teachers(2002).Memorandum submitted by the Association of University Teachers.London:House of Commons, Select Committee on Science and Technology.
4. Banatvala, J.,Bell, P.,Symonds, M.(2005).The Research Assessment Exercise is bad for UK medicine.The Lancet,365(9458),458-460.
5. Bence, V.,Oppenheim, C.(2004).The role of academic journal publications in the UK Research Assessment Exercise.Learned Publishing,17(1),53-68.
6. Bloch, A.(1977).Murphy's law and other reasons why things go wrong.Los Angeles:Price/Stern/Sloan.
7. Campbell, C.,Rozsnyai, K.(2002).Quality assurance and the development of course programmes.Bucharest:CEPES-UNESCO.
8. Carroll, L.,M. Gardner (Trans.)(1981).The annotated Alice.Harmondsworth:Penguin.
9. Clark, B. R.(1983).The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective.Berkeley:University of California Press.
10. Cownie, F.(2004).Two jobs, two lives and a funeral: Legal academics and work-life balance.Web Journal of Current Legal Issues,5
11. Institutional repositories and research assessment
12. de Boer, H. F.(2003).Institutionele verandering en professionele autonomie: Een empirisch-verklarende studie naar de doorwerking van de wet “Modernisering Universitaire Bestuursorganisatie” (MUB).Enschede:CHEPS, Universiteit Twente.
13. de Boer, H. F.,Enders, J.,Schimank, U.,D. Jansen (Ed.)(2007).New forms of governance in research organizations-Disciplinary approaches, interfaces and integration.Dordrecht:Springer.
14. de Boer, H. F.,Enders, J.,Westerheijden, D. F.(2006).Steering universities in the Netherlands: With a focus on doctoral studies and research funding.Paper presented at the Working Conference "Steering Universities",Rome, Italy:
15. den Uyl, J. M.(1970).De smalle marge van democratische politiek.Socialisme & Democratie,27,299-320.
16. Dill, D. D.,Soo, M.(2005).Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems.Higher Education,49(4),495-533.
17. Elkin, J.,Law, D.(1994).Research Assessment Exercise 1992; Library and information management and communications and media studies panel.Journal of Librarianship and Information Science,26(3),141-147.
18. Elton, L. R. B.(2003).Goodhart's law and performance indicators in higher education.Paper presented at the Education in a Changing Environment.
19. Erkenningscommissie Onderzoekscholen.(2005).Positie van onderzoekscholen.Amsterdam:Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.
20. Ferlie, E.,Musselin, C.,Andresani, G.(2007).The “steering” of higher education systems: A public management perspective.Paper presented at the European Science Foundation HELF Conference,Brussels:
21. Geuna, A.,Martin, B. R.(2003).University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison.Minerva,41(4),277-304.
22. Goedegebuure, L. C. J.,Maassen, P. A. M.,Westerheijden, D. F. (Eds.)(1990).Peer review and performance indicators: Quality assessment in British and Dutch higher education.Utrecht:Lemma.
23. Halsey, A. H.(1982).The decline of donnish dominion?.Oxford Review of Education,8(3),215-229.
24. Harley, S.(2002).The impact of research selectivity on academic work and identity in UK universities.Studies in Higher Education,27(2),187-205.
25. Harman, G.(2000).Allocating research infrastructure grants in post-binary higher education systems: British and Australian approaches.Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,22(2),111-126.
26. HEFCE research funding
27. Henkel, M.(2000).Academic identities and policy change in higher education.London:Jessica Kingsley.
28. Herbst, M.(2007).Financing public universities: The case of performance funding.Dordrecht:Springer.
29. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE)
30. Finance definitions 2004/05
31. Hicks, D.(2007).University system research evaluation in Australia, the UK and US (Working Paper No. 27)University system research evaluation in Australia, the UK and US (Working Paper No. 27),Atlanta, GA:Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy.
32. Holmes, A.,Oppenheim, C.(2001).Use of citation analysis to predict the outcome of the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise for Unit of Assessment (UoA) 61: Library and information management.Information Research: An International Electronic Journal,6(2),103.
33. Funding Bodies Review of Research Assessment-Response by The Institute of Cancer Research
34. Comments by the national postgraduate committee on the 1992 research assessment exercise
35. Jeliazkova, M.,Westerheijden, D. F.(2002).Systemic adaptation to a changing environment: Towards a next generation of quality assurance models.Higher Education,44(3-4),433-448.
36. Jongbloed, B.,Salerno, C.,Huisman, J.,Vossensteyn, H.(2005).Research prestatiemeting: Een internationale vergelijking (No. 113).
37. Jongbloed, B.,van der Meulen, B. R.(2006).Investeren in Dynamiek-Eindrapport Commissie Dynamisering-Deel 2: De follow-up van onderzoeksvisitaties: Onderzoek in opdracht van de Commissie Dynamisering, Eindrapportage.Den Haag:Ministerie van Onderwijs & Wetenschappen.
38. KNAW(2005).Erkenning onderzoekscholen.Amsterdam:Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.
39. Mace, J.(2000).The RAE and university efficiency.Higher Education Review,32(2),17-35.
40. Mackinder, H. J.(1962).Democratic ideals and reality.New York:W. W. Norton.
41. McNay, I.(1997).The impact of the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise in English universities.Higher Education Review,29(2),34-43.
42. McNay, I.(2003).Assessing the assessment: An analysis of the UK Research Assessment Exercise, 2001, and its outcomes, with special reference to re search in education.Science and Public Policy,30(1),47-54.
43. Impact of the research assessment exercise response by the national postgraduate committee
44. Oppenheim, C.(1997).The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 research assessment exercise ratings for British research in genetics, anatomy and archaeology.Journal of Documentation,53(5),477-487.
45. Panel G.(2006).Panel criteria and working methods (No. RAE 01/2006 (G)).
46. Pollitt, C.,Bouckaert, G.(2004).Public management reform: A comparative analysis.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
47. Response to HEFCE RAE Review
48. RAE Team(1999).Assessment panels' criteria and working methods (No. RAE Circular 5/99).
49. About Us
50. RAE Team(2006).RAE 2008 Panel criteria and working methods (No. 01/2006).
51. Review of research assessment: Report by Sir Gareth Roberts to the UK funding bodies
52. Sastry, T.,Bekhradnia, B.(2006).Using metrics to allocate research funds: A short evaluation of alternatives to the Research Assessment Exercise.Oxford:Higher Education Policy Institute.
53. The correlation between RAE ratings and citation counts in psychology
54. Spaapen, J.,van Suyt, C. A. M.,Prins, A. A. M.,Blume, S. S.(1988).De moeizame relatie tussen beleid en onderzoek: Evaluatie van vijf jaar Voorwaardelijke Financiering.Zoetermeer:Ministerie van Onderwijs & Weten schappen.
55. Talib, A. A.(2001).The continuing behavioural modification of academics since the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise.Higher Education Review,33(3),30-46.
56. OxCHEPS Occasional Papers
57. Tapper, T.,Salter, B.(2003).Interpreting the process of change in higher education: The case of the Research Assessment Exercises.Higher Education Quarterly,57(1),4-23.
58. Taylor, J.(1995).A statistical analysis of the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society),158(2),241-261.
59. Thomas, H. G.(2001).Funding mechanism or quality assessment: Responses to the Research Assessment Exercise in English institutions.Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,23(2),171-179.
60. van der Meulen, B. R.(1995).Indicatoren en indicaties voor de beoordeling van maatschappelijke kwaliteit van onderzoek.Enschede:Universiteit Twente, Centrum voor Studies van Wetenschap, Technologie en Samenleving.
61. Vereniging van Universiteiten,Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek,Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen(2003).Standard Evaluation Protocol 2003-2009 for Public Research Organisations.Utrecht:VSNU.
62. VSNU(1998).Assessment of research quality, protocol 1998.Utrecht:VSNU.
63. VSNU(1994).Quality assessment of research: Protocol 1994.Utrecht:VSNU.
64. Walford, L.(2000).The Research Assessment Exercise: Its effect on scholarly journal publishing.Learned Publishing,13(1),49-52.
65. Werkgroep Kwaliteitszorg wetenschappelijk onderzoek(2001).Kwaliteit verplicht: Naar een nieuw stelsel van kwaliteitszorg voor het wetenschappelijk onderzoek ... en standpuntbepaling KNAW, NWO en VSNU.Amsterdam:KNAW.
66. Westerheijden, D. F.(1997).A solid base for decisions: Use of the VSNU research evaluations in Dutch universities.Higher Education,33(4),397-413.
67. Westerheijden, D. F.,B. Stensaker,M. J. Rosa (Eds.)(2007).Quality assurance in higher education: Trends in regulation, translation and transformation.Dordrecht:Springer.
68. Westerheijden, D. F.,L. C. J. Goedegebuure,P. A. M. Maassen,D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.)(1990).Peer review and performance indicators: Quality assessment in British and Dutch higher education.Utrecht:Lemma.
69. Westerheijden, D. F.,T. W. Banta (Ed.)(1991).Promises, problems and pitfalls of peer review: The use of peer review in external quality assessment in higher education.Proceedings of the Third International Conference on assessing quality in higher education,Knoxville, TN:
70. Whitley, R.(1984).The intellectual and social organization of the sciences.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
71. Wood, F. Q.(1997).The peer review process (commissioned report No. 54)The peer review process (commissioned report No. 54),Canberra:Australian Government Publishing Service.
72. Yorke, M.(1996).The use of funding to encourage quality in academic programmes: Some lessons from experience, and their applicability.Quality in Higher Education,2(1),33-44.