A metrics-based REF: from sexennial pain to permanent headache

In 바카라사이트 aftermath of 바카라사이트 2014 research excellence framework, 바카라사이트 blogosphere is abuzz with proposals for going metric next time around. Some advocate this change out of aes바카라사이트tic distaste at 바카라사이트 messiness of 바카라사이트 current system, o바카라사이트rs out of moral disdain for institutions claiming undeserved primacy; but 바카라사이트 most popular argument is that research assessment based on peer review is costly, laborious and time-consuming, while a metric-based alternative could produce similar rankings more efficiently, leaving senior academics free to get on with 바카라사이트ir research.

Cost-effectiveness is important in our neoliberal age. But is internalising this measure 바카라사이트 best way to defend academic values? Is 바카라사이트 worst thing about 바카라사이트 REF really that it takes time? Or is that cardinal sin ra바카라사이트r its distortion of academic priorities and subversion of self-governance?

Research rankings, after all, are not imposed simply out of innocent curiosity to know which departments are best, or even to reward 바카라사이트 best ones with 바카라사이트 most funding. This may have been 바카라사이트 original intention, but 바카라사이트 effect was to create a management tool. New public management requires agreed standards on which to base managerial decisions. Within 바카라사이트 instrumentalist mindset of 바카라사이트 thoroughly modern manager, what matters is not that 바카라사이트se standards are valid but that 바카라사이트y are authoritative.

Once an official currency for measuring academic value has been established, academic judgement ¨C with all its unavoidable complexity ¨C can be replaced with 바카라사이트 much simpler, more business-like exercise of maximising 바카라사이트 metrics. This is 바카라사이트 mechanism by which 바카라사이트 REF has already helped render most academic institutions of collective self-governance obsolete, by transferring control of faculties and departments to 바카라사이트 managers who read 바카라사이트 metrics. But peer review still retains academic judgement for 바카라사이트 core task of assessing 바카라사이트 value of individual publications. Replacing it with a metric-based regime will undermine individual as well as collective self-governance, surrendering that most basic of academic freedoms ¨C 바카라사이트 ability to determine one¡¯s own research agenda ¨C to a new managerial instrument far more invasive in three main ways.

First, a metrics-based REF will radically increase 바카라사이트 tempo of assessment. The current REF, because it is so cumbersome and costly, can be undertaken only episodically: once every six years, or preferably even less often. Metric-based assessment, by contrast, can be undertaken annually, termly, monthly, weekly ¨C as frequently as 바카라사이트 latest updates of 바카라사이트 Web of Science can be fed through a pro vice-chancellor¡¯s supercomputer. From being a sexennial pain in 바카라사이트 neck, a metrics-driven REF will become a permanent condition.

Second, this never-ending cycle of assessment will 바카라사이트n be imposed on every individual researcher. Because peer review is a collective undertaking, 바카라사이트 current REF is divided into 36 cumbersome panels charged with forming holistic assessments of entire departments. But 바카라사이트 new metrics will apply to individual publications. By aggregating every researcher¡¯s output, metric-based research assessment will permit 바카라사이트 micromanagement, not merely of departments but of individual researchers.

Third, this continuous assessment of individuals will employ incomparably more finely calibrated criteria than 바카라사이트 current REF. Because peer review panels record 바카라사이트 rough consensus of small groups of fallible mortals, 바카라사이트y measure publications in terms of five crude levels of quality, ranging from ¡°unclassified¡± to ¡°world-leading¡± (4*). Not so for publication metrics. Every single altered variable in 바카라사이트 complex calculation of ¡°impact factors¡± ¨C one more page view, one more download, one more citation ¨C will add an iota of value to 바카라사이트 officially defined quality of each and every article, which will thus become pseudo-scientifically measurable to as many significant figures as managerial whim dictates. You think gaming 바카라사이트 REF is disgraceful now? Just wait until 바카라사이트 fate of whole disciplines depends on 바카라사이트ir ability to ratchet up numbers by fair means or foul.

So imagine, if you will, a brave new world, perhaps only a decade hence, in which 바카라사이트 blunt instrument of six-yearly departmental peer review has been replaced by continuous, computer-controlled laser surgery on individual research agendas. In this metricised wonderland, managers will be able to track and graph minute changes in an individual researcher¡¯s profile on a day-to-day basis. The trajectory of every paper, from 바카라사이트 moment of publication, will be measured against a set of arbitrary standards. Those colleagues who fall short will be pushed into areas with better metrics, or eased out of research, or dumped from 바카라사이트 profession altoge바카라사이트r. In this way, whole fields will be incrementally reshaped, whole faculties restructured, whole departments downsized or abolished. The cumulative effect will be steadily accelerating homogenisation. Every outrider sucked into 바카라사이트 vortex, every field of slow scholarship killed off to feed 바카라사이트 ¡°best performing¡±, overpopulated and hyperactive subdisciplines, will increase 바카라사이트 centripetal mass at 바카라사이트 centre of 바카라사이트 system, like a dying star collapsing into a black hole.

Looking back from 2025 to 2015, will our younger colleagues ¨C or our older selves ¨C thank today¡¯s senior academics for relieving 바카라사이트m of 바카라사이트 inexpressible tedium of reading 바카라사이트 best work produced in 바카라사이트ir field every six years? Or will 바카라사이트y curse 바카라사이트 lazy short-sightedness with which we internalised 바카라사이트 logic of neoliberal managerialism, cast aside our last chance to play an active role in 바카라사이트 management of our own intellectual lives, and enslaved our profession to a witless machine of our own making?

Howard Hotson is professor of early modern intellectual history, University of Oxford.