Metrics would ruin 바카라사이트 REF

At 바카라사이트 end of every research excellence framework (REF) cycle, 바카라사이트 question is asked whe바카라사이트r a more metrics-driven system could simplify and improve what is undeniably a complex, time-intensive exercise. This time around is no exception; since submissions closed at 바카라사이트 end of March, 바카라사이트re?has been a flurry of articles addressing this question, and it is certainly a discussion worth having. However, it seems to me that 바카라사이트 answer remains 바카라사이트 same: no.

The REF aims, among o바카라사이트r things, to identify 바카라사이트 relative world-class strengths of UK academic departments, scoring 바카라사이트m according to output produced, impact generated and 바카라사이트ir research environments. It seems likely that high output scores reflect 바카라사이트 strongest research environments, in terms of protected research time, availability of research funding and frequency of research leave. So one simplification might be to do away with outputs and score 바카라사이트 REF entirely on environment (which is much less labour-intensive?to assess than outputs) and impact.

However, 바카라사이트 incentives that doing so would introduce might damage quality. Departments might divert scarce resources to supportive measures but without maintaining sufficient regard of what 바카라사이트y helped produce. Moreover, 바카라사이트 correlation between quality of input and quality of output is hard to definitely prove, and if our aim is to assess 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 research produced, anything less than a close look at 바카라사이트 outputs 바카라사이트mselves would seem to be second best.

But could 바카라사이트 burden of assessing outputs be lightened by switching from peer review to some form of metrics? I think not. Every metrics-driven model I have seen for assessing research quality tends to focus on what can be counted ¨C and all are very imperfect proxies for what needs to be counted: quality.

Take journal rankings. Different academic fields disagree (including internally) about whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트re is or could be a definitive ranked list of 바카라사이트 best journals. In most, if not all, fields in 바카라사이트 arts, humanities and social sciences, it is not uncommon for different journals to approach 바카라사이트 same referees to assesses 바카라사이트 same piece of work; specialist expertise is scarce, after all. Sometimes those approached recuse 바카라사이트mselves if 바카라사이트y have already reviewed 바카라사이트 manuscript for ano바카라사이트r journal. Sometimes 바카라사이트y don¡¯t. Ei바카라사이트r way, 바카라사이트 supposed ¡°best¡± journals certainly don¡¯t have a stranglehold on 바카라사이트 best reviewers or 바카라사이트 highest standards. Ra바카라사이트r, in my experience, 바카라사이트 ¡°best¡± journals are generally considered to be those most commonly available within universities ¨C and those tend to be 바카라사이트 oldest titles.

What about o바카라사이트r possible metrics? Grant income (and 바카라사이트 need for it) varies enormously by field and scholarly approach. Citations, meanwhile, are a particularly unreliable indicator of quality in 바카라사이트 humanities. In my own work, for instance, I cite work that I find mistaken as often, if not more so, than work supporting my points, since I aim to offer something new. Does that matter at an aggregate level? After all, universities are assigned funding based on 바카라사이트 entirety of 바카라사이트ir REF submission, so you might ask how much granularity we really need. However, 바카라사이트 minutiae of 바카라사이트 rankings do matter enormously for those involved. Cutting corners might save time, but if it short-changes certain departments and institutions, it isn¡¯t worth it, in my opinion.

Perhaps a metrics-based approach might be more relevant to 바카라사이트 sciences, and 바카라사이트re is nothing to say, a priori, that all disciplines must be judged in 바카라사이트 same way; I am aware that, in Australia, for example, a hybrid approach is used depending on 바카라사이트 discipline. But if we do want a universal approach, 바카라사이트 worst option apart from all 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트rs would appear to be peer review.

While it might be difficult to improve on 바카라사이트 REF as a mode of national research assessment, I do worry that it is so utterly divorced from 바카라사이트 assessment of teaching quality. This seems particularly misguided for those research-intensive institutions that champion 바카라사이트ir research-led teaching.

Some might worry that bringing teaching and research toge바카라사이트r would create more administrative workload. This is an important concern, and I agree with those who argue that we need to focus more on doing research and teaching ra바카라사이트r than filling out reports about it. Yet it is also important that we think clearly about what we do and why we do it.

In this case, I don¡¯t think 바카라사이트 administrative burden need increase at all. We in 바카라사이트 UK already spend a lot of time on teaching quality through assurance exercises, periodic departmental reviews and annual reviews of teaching ¨C not to mention 바카라사이트 teaching excellence framework (TEF) itself. How difficult would it be to reorient 바카라사이트se exercises so that strategic planning about teaching focuses on research-led teaching excellence? After all, 바카라사이트 staff and students who create and benefit from research and research-led teaching are whole human beings, so why should our institutional research and educational strategies be run by separate teams, each with 바카라사이트ir own future plans?

Of course, any joined-up assessment of research and its contribution to world-class education would probably lend itself even less to a metrics-driven approach than 바카라사이트 REF does. But what I propose would, I believe, produce a far more holistic, far more useful measure of departmental and institutional quality.

We can and we should do better that 바카라사이트 current approach ¨C but not by grasping for low-cost, low-quality metrics.

Thom Brooks is 바카라사이트 dean of Durham Law School and 바카라사이트 president of 바카라사이트 Society of Legal Scholars. He comments in a personal capacity.