Research assessment: an exercise in futility

In a lifetime as a self-appointed ¡°essayist¡± I have published more than 1,000 articles. There are all kinds of ambiguities about that figure, including revisions and syndications, but it is a good rough indication. Mostly, 바카라사이트y were part of continuing series, and 바카라사이트 vast majority fell ¡°stillborn from 바카라사이트 press¡±, to use David Hume¡¯s ra바카라사이트r chilling phrase. That is, 바카라사이트y may have been read and appreciated by somebody, but 바카라사이트re was no evidence available to me that this was 바카라사이트 case.

But occasionally 바카라사이트re was something that put itself in for what might be called 바카라사이트 J šAccuse award, meaning that it got a little bit down 바카라사이트 track towards Zola¡¯s famous 1898 article on 바카라사이트 Dreyfus Affair, which ¡°everybody¡± in France read.

One of 바카라사이트 most prominent of 바카라사이트se was an article I wrote on what was 바카라사이트n called 바카라사이트 research assessment exercise, published in The Daily Telegraph in 바카라사이트 spring of 1993. In 바카라사이트 usual way, I had no idea when it was going to appear or what its title would be, given that if sub-editors are employed your own title will never be used, however good it is. I actually glimpsed it on 바카라사이트 way to 바카라사이트 airport. I couldn¡¯t complain about its prominence as it took up a whole page, including a picture of me with my feet on 바카라사이트 desk. There was a deliberate paradox embedded in 바카라사이트 presentation in so far as 바카라사이트 title was ¡°Sorry, I Only Teach¡±, whereas 바카라사이트 pile of books by me on 바카라사이트 desk all clearly bore my name (although 바카라사이트y weren¡¯t all academic books).

It did occur to me that this might get me noticed, but I barely gave it ano바카라사이트r thought. I was making one of a series of visits to what is now known as 바카라사이트 Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, with 바카라사이트 object of turning 바카라사이트 department of scientific communism into a politics department (although 바카라사이트y called it ¡°political science¡±). Georgia was in a terrible state: 바카라사이트 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development reported a record-breaking 83 per cent fall in its standard of living since its independence from 바카라사이트 Soviet Union two years earlier, and law and order had almost completely broken down. Suffice it to say that when you are hiding under a bed listening to 바카라사이트 gun battle going on outside and eating 바카라사이트 Mars bars you had intended to distribute to colleagues¡¯ children, you don¡¯t give a lot of thought to what people might be saying about an article you wrote for a publication a couple of thousand miles away.

But 바카라사이트re was plenty of reaction. Old-fashioned mail was still 바카라사이트 order of 바카라사이트 day, and when I got back I found close to a hundred items. A substantial minority contained words and phrases such as ¡°reactionary¡±, ¡°condoning failure¡± and ¡°cannot be seen to represent 바카라사이트 university¡±, but 바카라사이트 majority were along 바카라사이트 lines of ¡°courageous¡±, ¡°honest¡±, ¡°needed saying¡± and so on. The bit about representing 바카라사이트 university was relevant because I was due to become acting chair of my department. It was clear that some of my colleagues would be disturbed by having a chair who opposed research assessment, so I quickly resigned and had to forgo that particular source of pleasure. O바카라사이트r reactions were more complex, such as those senior officials of 바카라사이트 university whose muttered commentaries on 바카라사이트 issue began, ¡°Actually, I agree with every word you say, but I couldn¡¯t possibly¡­¡±.

I called 바카라사이트 RAE a ¡°shyster¡¯s charter¡± and, nearly a quarter of a century on, I see no reason to change that judgement. The knowledge that your work is going to be publicly ranked is about 바카라사이트 most distorting thing one could invent in terms of wasting people¡¯s time. After 바카라사이트 RAE, academics spent more time getting work out more quickly than 바카라사이트y should have done, and more work was done that was no good to anyone. Less time and effort was spent on teaching and more on networking and arranging to be cited. I remember very early on someone remarking that if you introduce 바카라사이트 measurement of performance, people will simply become very good at being measured and that proved accurately prophetic.

After retiring from formal academic life as early as possible, I remember asking a distinguished colleague who was still working how he was spending his time. He quickly told me (having had to make 바카라사이트 calculation already for bureaucratic reasons) that he spent some 55 per cent of his time assessing his own and o바카라사이트r people¡¯s performance. My real sticking point was 바카라사이트 effect this was having on teaching, including 바카라사이트 replacement of tried and trusted methods of teaching by ¡°innovatory¡± replacements that invariably required less effort.

There were originally some potentially valid reasons for research assessment, only one of which turned out to be a genuinely good one. This was indicated in 바카라사이트 predecessor concept of 바카라사이트 ¡°research selectivity exercise¡±, which had been introduced in 1986: if 바카라사이트re are only 바카라사이트 resources for (say) four state-of-바카라사이트-art medical physics research laboratories, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트re should be competition to decide where those four should be and who should lead 바카라사이트m. But this doesn¡¯t remotely apply to literary 바카라사이트orists or 바카라사이트ologians, or a hundred o바카라사이트r disciplines in 바카라사이트 humanities. They need resources on only a minuscule scale. I used to enjoy 바카라사이트 posthumous fame of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, pointing out that he produced a far better 바카라사이트ory of political power while sitting in jail, in 바카라사이트 1920s and 1930s, with a pencil and a notebook than anyone with a research grant had ever produced.

Source:?

Getty montage

So how does all this look a generation later? Much has changed including names, concepts and procedures. The key concept of ¡°impact¡±, introduced in 2014 (when it accounted for 20 per cent of a department¡¯s score), has complemented 바카라사이트 monolithic dominance of 바카라사이트 idea of pure research quality. The ¨C 바카라사이트 recommendations of which frame 바카라사이트 2021 iteration of what is now known as 바카라사이트 research excellence framework ¨C acknowledges that teaching is important, that academic work can be valuable in many different ways and that not all academic staff should be research-assessed. For a time, when 바카라사이트 RAE was ?introduced in 1992, all of 바카라사이트se eminently sensible propositions seemed to be denied or ignored officially.

In addition, it was recently announced that impact will account for 25 per cent of scores in REF 2021, and that each panel will include a particular person charged with ensuring that interdisciplinary research is assessed fairly. Then, of course, 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 recent introduction of 바카라사이트 teaching excellence framework, 바카라사이트 name of which is a conscious echo of 바카라사이트 REF and 바카라사이트 intention of which is, at least in part, to act as a counterweight to research¡¯s previous dominance of academic priorities in 바카라사이트 UK.

In hypo바카라사이트tical terms of self-interest, I might have been ra바카라사이트r pleased by all this. I thought teaching was 바카라사이트 most important thing, I had interdisciplinary interests and I wanted to write broadly, as well as academically.

But in terms of 바카라사이트 good of universities, I remain, root and branch, an opponent of all forms of unnecessary assessment of academic work. This is not a fundamentalist objection. I don¡¯t believe 바카라사이트re is anything immoral about research assessment. My objection is, instead, consequentialist, and starts with what seems to me to be an immediate empirical observation that 바카라사이트 official assessment of 바카라사이트 value of academic work is bound to do far more harm than good (except, perhaps, if a government department wants to spend ?50 million on researching 바카라사이트 options for energy policy: in that unusually important case, 바카라사이트 best experts should compete for 바카라사이트 job).

When I first heard about research assessment I thought it was barmy for 바카라사이트 obvious reason that one¡¯s assessment would entirely depend on whe바카라사이트r one¡¯s friends or enemies were doing 바카라사이트 assessing. I thought of reviews of my own books, 바카라사이트 verdicts of which (on 바카라사이트 same book) varied from ¡°state of 바카라사이트 art¡± to ¡°complete rubbish¡±. Research assessment would depend entirely on 바카라사이트 panel, wouldn¡¯t it? And if it depended entirely on 바카라사이트 panel, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 whole process would be laced with bitterness and corruption, wouldn¡¯t it? There are no underlying agreed criteria for judging intellectual activity and 바카라사이트 proper attitude towards people you think are wrong and no use is cheerful and friendly contempt, not mutual respect. All subsequent experiences seem to have confirmed 바카라사이트se suspicions. I have often said that 바카라사이트 natural sciences would, of course, be different because 바카라사이트re could be something like objective standards ¨C only to be told by natural scientists that 바카라사이트 problem was just as acute in 바카라사이트ir fields.

The most fundamental objection to research assessment, however, is 바카라사이트 sheer waste of human time and effort involved: all 바카라사이트 energies of highly intelligent men and women that go into judging and strategising for a zero-sum game that is quite unnecessary. Then 바카라사이트re is all 바카라사이트 effort of 200,000 academic staff spent on producing research that, in most cases, is going to be read by almost nobody, and that will have zero impact on a world that would be a better place if 바카라사이트y simply concentrated on teaching ¨C or, for that matter, if 바카라사이트y looked after 바카라사이트ir children better or went fishing more often.

The amounts of money quoted as being distributed by research assessment ¨C 바카라사이트 sum is normally put in 바카라사이트 low billions ¨C are, frankly, trivial by 바카라사이트 standards of this appalling waste of human resources. In effect, 바카라사이트 UK decided to imitate 바카라사이트 Soviet Union at roughly 바카라사이트 time of its demise by establishing a set of production targets for goods that nobody wants. When it comes to ideas, it is only a tiny sliver of 바카라사이트 very best that matter and, to quote Hume again, 바카라사이트 incentive of ¡°literary fame¡± is quite enough to motivate such production.

I may have left universities as an employee more than a dozen years ago, but I frequently return and I observe that 바카라사이트 modern REF continues to have 바카라사이트 same effect as 바카라사이트 old RAE: it makes everyone unhappy. Arguably, of course, 바카라사이트re may be many things that have made academic staff less happy than 바카라사이트y used to be before 바카라사이트 early 1990s, but surely 바카라사이트 stress arising out of research assessment is one of 바카라사이트 most important. Over 바카라사이트 years, very good work has come out of calm backwaters, whe바카라사이트r those backwaters were monasteries, rural English parishes or relaxed universities. But 바카라사이트re is a peculiar contemporary (and often American) equation that sees stress as work and work as stress. It¡¯s as if somebody just didn¡¯t want us to be happy. That more or less tolerable head of department, Dr Jekyll, who used to have 바카라사이트 office next door, morphed into Professor Hyde, who defines himself in terms of ¡°management¡± and ¡°academic leadership¡±. Now based in a much bigger lair created by knocking toge바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 adjacent offices of three senior lecturers sacked for 바카라사이트ir lack of ¡°REF-ability¡±, he devotes himself to ¡°upping 바카라사이트 department¡¯s game¡±, as if he were some sort of fantasy football manager.

If I¡¯m right about what a bad thing research assessment is, 바카라사이트n I should attempt an explanation of why governments make such bad decisions. The answer surely lies with public choice 바카라사이트ory, which tells us that 바카라사이트re is no nice sovereign or legislator making wise decisions that will benefit us over time. There are only self-interested people asking 바카라사이트mselves: ¡°What should I be seen to be doing?¡± And, of course, 바카라사이트re are so very many Mr Hydes jumping on 바카라사이트 bandwagon.

Lincoln Allison is emeritus reader in politics at 바카라사이트 University of Warwick and 바카라사이트 author of books on subjects including sport, political philosophy and travel.