Abstract
This paper uses empirical research data and theoretical insights from the literature on governance to problematise some of the arguments presented in the research assessment literature, in particular, the description of the UK RAE/REF as a mechanism for top-down control with strongly negative, blanket-impacts on disciplines, institutions and individual researchers. The concepts of performativity, accountability and governmentality are employed to unpack normative claims about negative impacts and conflicts of values, and empirical claims about the nature of changes in behavior, attitude and interpretation, as reported by the researchers surveyed. The paper argues that inherent, multiple ambivalences of the RAE as a governance technology operate at the transition points between traditional and contemporary forms of governing and account for the mixed picture of its impacts at system, field, institutional, and individual level.
Zusammenfassung
Grundlage des Beitrages sind empirische Forschungsergebnisse und theoretische Erkenntnisse aus der Literatur zum Thema der Kontrolle. Sie dienen der Problematisierung von Argumenten, die in der Literatur zum Forschungsrating angeführt werden. Insbesondere wird die Darstellung der RAE/REF im Vereinigten Königreich als ein Mechanismus der hierarchischen Steuerung mit negativen und umfassenden Auswirkungen auf Fachgebiete, Institutionen und einzelne Forscher thematisiert. Die Konzepte der Performativität, Verantwortlichkeit und Gouvernementalität werden eingesetzt um normative Ansprüche zu negativen Auswirkungen und Wertekonflikten darzulegen. Ferner dienen sie der Darlegung der von den befragten Forschern angeführten empirischen Ansprüche zu Änderungen des Verhaltens, der Einstellung und Auslegung. In dem Beitrag wird argumentiert, dass inhärente und multiple Ambivalenzen der RAE als Kontrollmethoden am Übergang von einer traditionellen zu eine zeitgemäßen Steuerung fungieren. Zudem erklären sie die unterschiedlichen Darstellungen der Auswirkungen de RAE auf die Ebenen des Systems, des Fachgebietes, der Institution und der einzelnen Person.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bang, H. (Ed.). (2003). Governance as social and political communication. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Besley, T., & Peters, M. (2009). Neoliberalism, performance and the assessment of educational research quality: Comparing United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. In T. Besley (Ed.), Assessing the quality of educational research in higher education. International perspectives (pp. 27–48). Rotterdam: Sense.
Blatter, J. (2012). Forms of political governance: Theoretical foundations and ideal types (Working Paper 07). Lucerne: Department of Political Science, University of Lucerne.
Bridges, D. (2009). Assessing the quality of research in higher education: The United Kingdom Research Assessment Exercise. In T. Besley (Ed.), Assessing the quality of educational research in higher education. International perspectives (pp. 85–104). Rotterdam: Sense.
Brown, M. (2007). On promoting rigour—a response. Journal of Education Policy, 22, 353–356.
Brown, S. (2008). Research assessment in higher education: The impact on institutions, staff and educational research in Scotland. ACCESS: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies, 27, 141–151.
Coryn, CLS. (2009). Research governance by evaluation: A meta-evaluation of international systems for evaluating government-funded research. In T. Besley (Ed.), Assessing the quality of educational research in higher education. International perspectives (pp. 59–84). Rotterdam: Sense.
Currie, J. (2008). The Research Assessment Exercise in Hong Kong: Positive and negative consequences. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 9, 53–68.
Dadds, M., & Kynch, C. (2003). The impact of the RAE 3b rating on educational research in teacher education departments. Research Intelligence, 84, 8–11.
D’Andrea, V., & Gosling, D. (2005). Improving teaching and learning in higher education. A whole institution approach. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed). London: Sage.
Donovan, C. (2005). The governance of social science and everyday epistemology. Public Administration, 83, 597–615.
Elton, L. (2000). The UK RAE: Unintended consequences. Higher Education Quarterly, 54, 274–283.
Epstein, D., Boden, R., Deem, R., Rizvi, F., & Wright, S. (2008). Geographies of knowledge, geometries of power: Framing the future of higher education. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1993). About the beginning of the hermeneutics of the self: Two lectures at Dartmouth (17 and 24 November 1980, ed. M. Blasius). Political Theory, 21, 198–227.
Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population. London: Palgrave.
Furlong, J. (2013). Education: An anatomy of the discipline. London: Routledge.
Furlong, J., & Lawn, M. (Eds.). (2010). Disciplines of education: Their role in the future of education research. London: Routledge.
Harley, S. (2002). The impact of research selectivity on academic work and identity in UK universities. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 187–205.
HEFCE (2009) Recurrent grants for 2009–10. 8/2009, March. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England. Online at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/data/year/2009/recurrentgrantsfor2009-10/. Accessed 19 Sep. 2014.
Henkel, M. (2000). Academic identities and policy change in higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Holligan, C., Wilson, M., & Humes, W. (2011). Research cultures in English and Scottish university education departments: An exploratory study of academic staff perceptions. British Educational Research Journal, 37, 713–734.
Jenkins, A. (1995). The Research Assessment Exercise, funding and teaching quality. Quality Assurance in Education, 3, 4–12.
Kelly, A., & Burrows, R. (2011). Measuring the value of sociology? Some notes on performative metricization in the contemporary academy. The Sociological Review, 59, 130–150.
Lucas, L. (2006). The research game in academic life. Maidenhead: SRHE/Open University Press.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Manfredi, S., & Vickers, L. (2009). The impact of the process to promote equality and diversity in the RAE 2008. London: Equality Challenge Unit.
McKenzie, J. (2001). Perform or else: From discipline to performance. London: Routledge.
McNay, I. (1997). The impact of the 1992 RAE on institutional and individual behaviour in English higher education. Bristol: HEFCE.
McNay, I. (2003). Assessing the assessment: An analysis of the UK Research Assessment Exercise, 2001, and its outcomes, with special reference to research in education. Science and Public Policy, 30, 47–54.
Morley, L. (2001). Subjected to review. Engendering gender and power in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 16, 465–78.
Morley, L. (2003). Quality and power in higher education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Oancea A. (2007). From Procrustes to Proteus: Trends and practices in the assessment of education research. International Journal for Research Methods in Education, 30, 243–269.
Oancea, A. (2008). Performative accountability and the UK Research Assessment Exercise. ACCESS: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies, 27, 153–173.
Oancea, A. (2010a). Research assessment in the United Kingdom: Issues of concern. In UNESCO & ISSC (Eds.), International Social Science Council (2010) World Social Science Report. Paris: UNESCO.
Oancea, A. (2010b). The BERA/ UCET Review of the Impacts of RAE 2008 on Education Research in UK Higher Education Institutions (Written with advice from J. Furlong and D. Bridges). Macclesfield: UCET/BERA.
Oancea, A. (2011). More, for less? Education research in the current financial and accountability contexts. Research Intelligence, 114, 6–7.
Olssen, M. (2002). The Neo-liberal appropriation of tertiary education policy in New Zealand: Accountability, research and academic freedom. Wellington: New Zealand Association for Research in Education.
Olssen, M. (2011). The strange death of the liberal university: Research assessment and the impact of research. In R. King, S. Marginson, & R. Naidoo (Eds.), Handbook on Globalization and Higher Education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
O’Neill, O. (2002). A question of trust: The BBC Reith lectures 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ovseiko, P. V., Oancea, A., & Buchan, A. M. (2012). Assessing research impact in academic clinical medicine: A study using Research Excellence Framework pilot impact indicators. BMC Health Services Research, 12, 478.
Ozga, J. (1998). The entrepreneurial researcher: Re-formations of identity in the research marketplace. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8, 143–153.
Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
RAE. (2005). Guidance on submissions. RAE 3/2005, June. London: HEFCE, SHEFC, HEFCW, DELNI. Online at http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2005/03/rae0305.pdf. Accessed 19 Sep. 2014.
Ranson, S. (2003). Public accountability in the age of neo-liberal governance. Journal of Education Policy, 18, 459–480.
Roberts, G. (2003) Review of research assessment. Report by Sir Gareth Roberts to the UK funding bodies. Online at http://www.ra-review.ac.uk/reports/roberts.asp. Accessed 19 Sep. 2014.
Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2000). Coercive accountability. The rise of audit culture in higher education. In M. Strathern (ed.), Audit cultures. Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy (pp. 57–89). London: Routledge.
Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2004). Whose accountability? Governmentality and the auditing of universities. Parallax, 10, 100–116.
Talib, A. (2001). The continuing behavioural modification of academics since the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise. Higher Education Review, 33, 30–46.
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, 171–79.
Times Higher Education. (2008). RAE 2008: The results. timeshighereducation.co.uk. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/404786.article. Accessed 30 May 2013.
Warde, A. (1996). The effects of the1992 RAE. Network: Newsletter of the British Sociological Association, 64, 1–2.
Webb, T. (2005). The anatomy of accountability. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 189–208.
Whitty, G., Donoghue, M., Christie, D., Kirk, G., Menter, I., McNamara, O., Moss, G., Oancea, A., Rogers, C. and Thomson, P. (2012) Prospects for Education Research in Education Departments in HEIs in the UK. London: BERA and UCET. Online at http://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/FINAL-REPORT-FINAL-27-March-2012.pdf. Accessed 19 Sep. 2014.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the respondents to this study for their openness and honesty. I am grateful to John Furlong and David Bridges for their direct contribution to the study, to Margaret Brown, Ian McNay, John Gardner, Ian Menter, and Sue Davies for their active role as members of the study’s advisory board, to Jenny Ozga for her comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and to the helpful anonymous reviewers. Thanks are also due to the study’s funders, BERA and UCET. Earlier versions of parts of this paper were circulated as a report (Oancea 2010b) and in BERA’s newsletter, Research Intelligence (Oancea 2011).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1. Examples of survey questions
Appendix 2. Sample description
Current post | |
Research—junior | 13 |
Lecturer | 61 |
Research senior | 44 |
Research administration/other | 5 |
Current contract | |
Fixed-term | 9 |
Open/rolling | 9 |
Permanent | 106 |
Decision-making responsibilities | |
Senior management | 32 |
Mid-management | 26 |
Project management and administration | 15 |
None | 57 |
Funding history | |
PI/grant holder | 72 |
Researcher (not PI) | 26 |
Other involvement | 9 |
None | 19 |
Age group | |
45 and under | 29 |
46–55 | 46 |
56 and over | 49 |
Sex | |
Female | 63 |
Male | 53 |
Prefer not to say | 5 |
Submitted to RAE 2008 | |
Yes | 93 |
No | 33 |
Current way of working | |
Lone researcher | 55 |
Part of team | 65 |
Inter/disciplinarity | |
Disciplinary work mostly | 53 |
Multi/interdisciplinary work | 65 |
Self-rated knowledge of RAE | |
Excellent/good | 72 |
Average/fair | 44 |
Poor | 7 |
Self-rated practical experience of RAE processes in institution | |
Excellent/good | 77 |
Average/fair | 40 |
Poor | 9 |
Type of current institution | |
Pre-1992 | 99 |
Post-1992 | 24 |
Country of current institution | |
England | 99 |
Scotland | 12 |
Northern Ireland | 11 |
Wales | 1 |
Outcome of RAE 2008 for own institution | |
Better | 46 |
No change | 21 |
Worse | 32 |
Not known | 24 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Oancea, A. Research assessment as governance technology in the United Kingdom: findings from a survey of RAE 2008 impacts. Z Erziehungswiss 17 (Suppl 6), 83–110 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-014-0575-5
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-014-0575-5