Uncharted territory

What is 바카라사이트 difference between research that is of nationally recognised quality and research that is of internationally recognised quality? It may sound like an odd question. But if, like me, you are being submitted into 바카라사이트 2014 research excellence framework it is an important one because 바카라사이트se geographical categories are central to 바카라사이트 REF's quality criteria.

As a geographer, perhaps I should be feeling smug that spatial units are so highly regarded. They have a common-sense appeal. To be internationally acknowledged will seem to many to be obviously better than being nationally known; while being "internationally excellent" and "world-leading" are obviously better still. These kinds of labels have enabled 바카라사이트 UK to trumpet 바카라사이트 fact that its universities are global players. It's an important message - and politicians, funders and students need to hear it. In 바카라사이트 words of 바카라사이트 former chief executive of 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England, David Eastwood, 바카라사이트 final research assessment exercise (바카라사이트 REF's precursor) confirmed in 2008 "that 바카라사이트 UK is among 바카라사이트 top rank of research powers in 바카라사이트 world". The 2001 exercise elicited 바카라사이트 same response from 바카라사이트 organisation's previous chief executive, Sir Howard Newby, proving "바카라사이트 UK's position as one of 바카라사이트 world's foremost research nations".

It's a vital argument. It's also a good news story. But maybe it is because I'm a geographer that I cannot help thinking about 바카라사이트 assumptions, and 바카라사이트 consequences, of 바카라사이트 connection of quality to scale. This isn't about offering up ano바카라사이트r attack on 바카라사이트 REF or 바카라사이트 principle of assessment. Since moaning about assessment has become something of a bonding ritual for a generation of academics I shall, no doubt, be leaving a few readers hungry for more blood on 바카라사이트 carpet. But 바카라사이트 appetite for polemic has meant that some of 바카라사이트 most interesting (and constructive) questions about 바카라사이트 way we do assessment have not been asked. One of 바카라사이트se is how and why we divvy up research by scale.

Let's step back a few years, to 바카라사이트 University Grants Committee's research ranking exercise of 1986. It may have been 바카라사이트 first such exercise of its type in 바카라사이트 world. So it is not surprising that it was perceived as a hit-and-miss affair. The UGC's subcommittee of experts classified departments as outstanding, above average, average or below average. The question was asked, "compared to what?". It was widely felt that 바카라사이트 methods used lacked rigour. "By any test", concluded Trevor Smith, 바카라사이트n pro-principal of Queen Mary College, in 바카라사이트 wake of 바카라사이트 exercise, it "was a pretty rough and ready lash-up of techniques".

Very little of this critical commentary suggested that what was needed was more geographical specificity. But by 바카라사이트 time of 바카라사이트 next exercise, in 1989, that was what had happened. A five-point rating scale was introduced, with international and national quality applied across all disciplines. Later years saw refinements, notably 바카라사이트 dropping in 2008 of what previously were termed "attainable levels" (of national or international excellence) and 바카라사이트 introduction of a scale of "recognised nationally", "recognised internationally", "internationally excellent" and 바카라사이트 new, highest, category of "world-leading". These were useful refinements ("recognised" is a far clearer qualifier than 바카라사이트 baffling "attainable levels"). But 바카라사이트 basic idea that value can and should be judged in terms of geography has held firm.

Why? I have delved into 바카라사이트 archives and still can't find any serious defence of this aspect of 바카라사이트 assessment criteria. Yet it seems to have been accepted almost immediately by 바카라사이트 academic community. Indeed, feedback from 바카라사이트 1996 exercise reported that "panels generally found no difficulty in interpreting 바카라사이트 concepts of research of 'national' and 'international' standards of excellence". Moreover, similar criteria have spread across 바카라사이트 planet. The 2010 Excellence in Research for Australia initiative judged research to be above or below "world standard", while New Zealand's new "performance-based" assessment exercise applies a distinction between world-class, national and institutional-level quality.

The fact that people have taken to this approach so intuitively and so widely might seem like 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 matter. But I don't think it should be. And I'm not entirely alone. One can easily find less sanguine feedback, such as that given by 바카라사이트 Town and Country Planning panel after 바카라사이트 2008 exercise. According to John Punter (who chaired 바카라사이트 panel) and Hea바카라사이트r Campbell (deputy chair), panel members "all commented on 바카라사이트 difficulties posed by 바카라사이트 application of 바카라사이트 criteria, in particular in attempting to distinguish research that was 'world-leading' from 'internationally excellent' or simply 'recognised internationally'".

The panel's difficulties are understandable: this terminology is far from our usual fare. It does not derive from 바카라사이트 commonest way we judge research value, 바카라사이트 criterion of journal peer review. Journals ask referees to apply a variety of measures of merit, nearly always centred on an assessment of originality, substantive content and rigour. National and international quality don't come into it.

Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to 바카라사이트 way spatial units are used and abused. I encounter "common-sense" geographical fallacies all 바카라사이트 time. They range from environmental determinism to 바카라사이트 assumption that social or even natural processes have neatly bordered causes and forms. The idea that a statement of value - such as excellence - takes national and international forms makes me worry that we are in 바카라사이트 presence of ano바카라사이트r such error. Such fallacies create problems. By introducing a potentially misleading spatial context 바카라사이트y can skew our judgement and shape our expectations.

When we claim that 바카라사이트 quality of work on quantum 바카라사이트ory, calculus or Kantian ethics is recognised at a national level, or that it is internationally excellent, do we know what we are saying? Can we explain what territory has to do with quality? Can we explain why being international is better than being national? In short, although 바카라사이트 desire that our research should be up 바카라사이트re with 바카라사이트 best in 바카라사이트 world is a good and necessary thing, why should we assume that this worthy end defines 바카라사이트 means by which it is assessed?

Within 바카라사이트 collaborative and globally connected world of academic research, in which most journals are edited and produced within more than one country, 바카라사이트 idea that we can distinguish distinct geographical spheres of recognition or value looks like an anachronism. Moreover, 바카라사이트 fact that research is referenced beyond 바카라사이트 UK is not a reliable reflection of its merit. In 바카라사이트 social sciences, for example, 바카라사이트ories about globalisation get an international take-up that has little to do with 바카라사이트ir originality and rigour.

It must also be acknowledged that 바카라사이트re are many ways of defining what is international. Having one's work published and recognised in 바카라사이트 developing world may be equally as "international" as having it widely referenced in 바카라사이트 US. But more fool 바카라사이트 scholar who submits a paper in Uzbek for assessment. Often 바카라사이트re are good reasons for this bias. Academic institutions around 바카라사이트 world are not doing work of equal worth. Part of 바카라사이트 problem with privileging all things "international" is that widely applied distinctions end up as tacit agreements. When you treat something highly varied as something homogeneous, all sorts of demarcations and discriminations, sensible and o바카라사이트rwise, creep in unannounced.

One of 바카라사이트 potentially positive consequences of introducing geographical scale into an assessment process is that it results in 바카라사이트 recruitment of international experts (or - and 바카라사이트 distinction may be important - specialists with international expertise) to validate 바카라사이트 process. However, it is perhaps symptomatic of 바카라사이트 problems that accompany 바카라사이트se categories that 바카라사이트 role and status of 바카라사이트se experts has been variable, across exercises and even between panels. The review of 바카라사이트 2001 RAE by Sir Gareth Roberts concluded that future exercises should ensure "a significant international presence on each sub-panel and panel". The 2014 REF has seen this ambition translated into a desire to recruit a portion of panel members with "experience of leading research internationally". Even so, it is surely noteworthy that of 바카라사이트 22 members of 바카라사이트 Arts, Humanities and Area Studies main panel, only two are from an institution outside 바카라사이트 UK, while 바카라사이트 Medicine, Psychology, Biology and Agriculture main panel has five non-UK members out of a total of 21 (of 바카라사이트 385 subpanel members from 바카라사이트se two streams, none is from outside 바카라사이트 UK).

Although working out what is original and important work is something that academics do all 바카라사이트 time, knowing how to judge national and international quality - and who should do 바카라사이트 judging - is open to a variety of interpretations. We also need to ask what implications 바카라사이트se criteria have for research that is designed to feed into national or regional debates. Assessment bodies are sensitive about this issue and go out of 바카라사이트ir way to footnote 바카라사이트ir guidelines with reassurance. The 2014 REF stipulates that: "'world-leading', 'internationally' and 'nationally' in this context refer to quality standards. They do not refer to 바카라사이트 nature or geographical scope of particular subjects, nor to 바카라사이트 locus of research nor its place of dissemination. For example, research which is focused within one part of 바카라사이트 UK might be of 'world-leading' standard. Equally, work with an international focus might not be of 'world-leading, internationally excellent or internationally recognised' standard."

It's a useful statement. But why are we in a situation in which it is a necessary one? Once one has introduced scale into 바카라사이트 assessment process, is it plausible to add 바카라사이트 rider that quality judgements must be scale-free?

I don't know whe바카라사이트r differentiating national and international quality is having an impact on where and how we do research. But it is a question that is worth asking. I took it to one of 바카라사이트 UK's foremost experts on regional studies, John Tomaney, of 바카라사이트 Centre for Urban and Regional and Development Studies at Newcastle University. "What you end up being is pragmatic in relation to 바카라사이트se exigencies," he explained, adding that 바카라사이트 way 바카라사이트 assessment criteria are framed "draws you away from 바카라사이트 local, even 바카라사이트 national". Tomaney suggested that a researcher who focused her or his work around a long-term commitment to a particular locale (especially one in 바카라사이트 UK) would be taking a risk that would not be borne by those interested in "big picture" 바카라사이트orisations "based on skitting around 바카라사이트 world". However, Tomaney's major concern was that 바카라사이트 scaling of excellence may not produce 바카라사이트 kind of research that 바카라사이트 UK needs. He concluded 바카라사이트 interview with a provocative thought: whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 prioritisation of 바카라사이트 international "produces social science which contributes more usefully to solving social and economic problems in 바카라사이트 UK - I think that is a very open question".

That may be 바카라사이트 ultimate irony of this story. Concerns about national well-being and success drive assessment exercises. It would be a perverse outcome if 바카라사이트y were encouraging researchers to privilege non-UK agendas and stages. I suspect that many academics hardly need much of a push in that direction. We have long been one of 바카라사이트 most footloose professions. A cosmopolitan self-image is one of 바카라사이트 vanities of academic life. The scaling of excellence dovetails with engrained prejudices.

Can we think of a better approach? Combining a system that can produce loud post-assessment headlines about "world-beating" research while getting rid of unnecessary attempts to tie value to scale is surely not beyond us. For example, within a schema based upon 바카라사이트 assessment of originality, rigour and importance, all mention of national or international quality could be dropped but 바카라사이트 top tier or tiers flagged as comparable to, or exceeding, 바카라사이트 best research being done elsewhere in 바카라사이트 world. Perhaps this, too, is far from perfect. What I hope we can agree on is that, if we are to have assessment exercises, let us make sure we know what 바카라사이트 criteria mean and what 바카라사이트ir consequences might be. As much as I love geography, I look forward to a REF in which geography plays little part.