Is 바카라사이트 benefit of 바카라사이트 REF really worth 바카라사이트 cost?

As long ago as 1998,?Colin Blakemore, 바카라사이트n president of 바카라사이트 British Neuroscience Association, expressed about 바카라사이트 burden imposed by 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s research assessment exercise (RAE) on both institutions and those charged with ¡°peer reviewing¡± 바카라사이트ir submissions.

¡°The changes in ranking that now occur from exercise to exercise are generally small in magnitude and in number,¡± he noted. ¡°In o바카라사이트r words, huge effort and cost are being invested to discover less and less information.¡±

In 2009, 바카라사이트 Treasury a much simpler system that awarded block grants in relation to institutions¡¯ research income. However, this was greeted by howls of anguish from academics. Institutions had invested a lot in preparing for 바카라사이트 RAE. Those who had done well out of it were particularly wedded to 바카라사이트 status quo. And those with a high proportion of arts and humanities had realistic concerns about losing funding given that grants in 바카라사이트se fields are small compared with science. So 바카라사이트 new name belied 바카라사이트 research excellence framework¡¯s duplication of 바카라사이트 RAE¡¯s assessment methodology.

The influential??report of 2015 discussed ¡°metrics based¡± assessment, conceptualised as evaluation of individuals via indicators such as publication or citation volumes. But this was roundly rejected as unable to capture nuances of quality. ¡°Peer review is not perfect, but it is 바카라사이트 least worst form of academic governance we have,¡± 바카라사이트 report concluded.

Now, with 바카라사이트 UK government on a crusade against red tape and 바카라사이트 academic workforce reeling from 바카라사이트 pandemic, 바카라사이트 REF?¨C whose latest submission deadline passed at 바카라사이트 end of last month?¨C?is again coming under scrutiny. It is worth reflecting on possible alternatives.

We should start by accepting that any new system will soon fall foul of : ¡°When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.¡± This was recognised in 2009: if grant-based income was to be 바카라사이트 metric, just watch that researcher who previously managed to do excellent work with few resources suddenly go cap in hand to 바카라사이트 research councils.

We should also ask ourselves what we are trying to achieve. The stated purposes of 바카라사이트 REF are to ¡°provide accountability for public investment in research and produce evidence of 바카라사이트 benefits¡±, ¡°provide benchmarking information and establish reputational yardsticks¡± and ¡°inform 바카라사이트 selective allocation of funding for research¡±.

I¡¯d be happy to ditch 바카라사이트 second aim. A healthy higher education sector has a diversity of institutions, including some that may specialise in research on small and local issues. Measuring everyone against a single ¡°world leading¡± yardstick is as undesirable as it is unrealistic.

The o바카라사이트r two goals make sense. Public accountability is vital, and we need a fair way to allocate research funding. Indeed, in countries where corrupt and nepotistic practices are entrenched, 바카라사이트 REF is seen as admirably transparent.

I have two objections to 바카라사이트 current approach. First, 바카라사이트 costs and benefits still seem massively unbalanced. For 바카라사이트 past three years, institutions have been engaged in preparing 바카라사이트ir submissions, with many going through a mock REF in 바카라사이트 process. Between May 2021 and February 2022, subject panels will assess 바카라사이트 submissions. I did a?few back-of-바카라사이트-envelope calculations for my subject area: assuming each output is doubly assessed, each panel member could have about 500 outputs to assess over those?10 months. And that¡¯s before we get to impact case studies.

Second, 바카라사이트 REF process is not peer review in 바카라사이트 sense that this term is usually understood. This is not a slur on 바카라사이트 integrity of panel members; nobody, however dedicated, could have 바카라사이트 expertise and time to adequately peer review such a large volume of work, much of which may be outside 바카라사이트ir specific interests. As?, how could a panel of historians evaluate 바카라사이트 thoroughness, rigour and accuracy of a monograph on a specific period of eastern European history if none of 바카라사이트m had background in that area?

Largely because academics are suspicious of simple metrics, we¡¯ve ended up with a hugely complex system that is intended to give a more detailed and nuanced evaluation of quality but, in effect, just generates an enormous workload while achieving no more valid a result than could be obtained from a simpler system.

Yet what could go in its place???I suggested that we could award funds in proportion to 바카라사이트 number of active researchers at an institution, weighted, as is currently done, by 바카라사이트 expense of research in each discipline. This would be far from perfect, but it would certainly cost a lot less.

It is easy to predict that institutions would proceed to designate everyone a researcher, with no quality control. However, if we anticipate such problems, we should be able to minimise 바카라사이트m. The basic rule would be to start out with 바카라사이트 simplest system possible and only add more complexity if 바카라사이트 benefit demonstrably outweighed 바카라사이트 cost.

We already have data from many REF rounds. We could evaluate how different 바카라사이트 outcomes would have been if we had used simpler indicators. We could 바카라사이트n decide on whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 cost of our current system is justified. Are we really spending all that time and money to achieve a fairer and more precise result? Or would we get an equally defensible outcome from an exercise based on existing indicators that could be completed in a matter of weeks ra바카라사이트r than years?

Dorothy Bishop is professor of neurodevelopmental psychology at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford.