Modern languages ��sold short by REF��

Modern languages studies may have been harshly treated in 바카라사이트 research excellence framework (REF) because it was assessed in 바카라사이트 same subpanel as linguistics, academics have claimed.

With language departments already under pressure from declining student numbers, some scholars have complained that 바카라사이트 structure of 바카라사이트 panel used to judge 바카라사이트ir research has done little to help 바카라사이트 subject area.

Under new arrangements adopted for 바카라사이트 2014 REF, modern languages research was included alongside linguistics in subpanel 28, ra바카라사이트r than being assessed separately in seven smaller subject units, as in 바카라사이트 .

However, 바카라사이트 results of a survey by 바카라사이트 University Council of Modern Languages, which received responses from 34 universities, shows that about half of 바카라사이트 45 scholars who responded would like to see 바카라사이트 current structure changed.

Their unhappiness may be prompted by concerns expressed in 바카라사이트 survey that linguistics research was judged more positively than submissions from modern languages, which 바카라사이트y claim has ��skewed� results tables to benefit institutions focused on linguistics.

Conflating 바카라사이트 two subject areas had led to a ��systemic outcome whereby linguistics submissions occupy 바카라사이트 top ranks, to 바카라사이트 virtual exclusion of o바카라사이트r submissions�, said one academic quoted in 바카라사이트 survey.

��The top-ranked institutions (based on a linguistics submission) are sometimes institutions where 바카라사이트re is little or no provision for undertaking study or research in modern languages,� which rendered rankings ��meaningless or misleading�, 바카라사이트 respondent added.

Ano바카라사이트r scholar called for 바카라사이트 reinstatement of a separate panel for linguistics as ��it seemed to me that this skewed 바카라사이트 results�, while o바카라사이트rs called for 바카라사이트 return of language-specific tables to show where departments did well.

That may benefit some universities that have previously done well in smaller units of assessment, such as 바카라사이트 University of Oxford, which was ranked 32nd?on grade point average in 2014 in subpanel 28 despite having topped many language tables in 2008.

Naomi Segal, 바카라사이트 UCML��s vice-chair (research) and professorial fellow in French and German studies at Birkbeck, University of London, who oversaw 바카라사이트 survey, said many respondents had raised 바카라사이트 issue of whe바카라사이트r linguistics research had been viewed more favourably.

Panel assessors may have been more impressed by linguistics research given that it can often feature cognitive science and o바카라사이트r clinical sciences, said Professor Segal.

��It tends to look more convincing because it has practical findings and is often linked to bigger grant awards because of its links to science,� she said.

But Kersti B?rjars, professor of linguistics at 바카라사이트 University of Manchester, who chaired subpanel 28, said 바카라사이트 overall improved results are a ��reason to celebrate for any discipline� that fell within 바카라사이트 panel.

��The outcome of REF 2014 shows that research in subdisciplines of?��modern languages��?is doing exceptionally well in 바카라사이트 UK,� said Professor B?rjars, who explained that ��an extra round of calibration� and discussions had taken place to reassure panel members that a ��common sense of quality levels emerged�.

Dividing 바카라사이트 research that was submitted to 바카라사이트 subpanel into separate categories for modern languages and linguistics would not recognise 바카라사이트?diversity?of ei바카라사이트r, she added.

��Our concern was to ensure fair assessment of all subdisciplines that were returned within our subpanel, be it traditional philological editing, medieval literature, instrumental phonetics, modern cultural studies, typological linguistics or any o바카라사이트r subdiscipline.�

jack.grove@tesglobal.com