Advertisement

Making the Research Dynamic Dominant in the Idea of the University

  • Ourania Filippakou
  • Ted Tapper
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Education book series (BRIEFSEDUCAT)

Abstract

The empirical basis of this chapter is centred around the outcomes of the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise, although it is recognised that the assessment process has continued to evolve over time. The purpose of the process was to distribute core research funding selectively—to reflect that research output, in terms of both quality and quantity, varied considerably from one higher education institution to the next with parallel variations being shown by individual academics. The new universities, with Warwick and York leading the way, form a second tier in the UK research hierarchy in terms of the quality of their research outputs and the number of their faculty who contribute to their research output. In these terms they make up a group of universities which falls just below the leading research universities that is comprised of Oxford, Cambridge, the major civics, and the larger colleges of the University of London. However, because of its more specialised academic focus, the University of Essex occupies within the group. The research assessment exercise confers status as well resources, which may help to explain why all UK universities endeavour to have at least one or two departments which have a reputation for research excellence.

Keywords

Research selectivity Measuring research quality Specialised research agenda 

References

  1. Barnett, R. (1994). The limits of competence: Knowledge, higher education and society. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bence, V., & Oppenheim, C. (2005). The evolution of the UK’s research assessment exercise: Publications, performance and perceptions. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 37(2), 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berdahl, R. O. (1959). British universities and the state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cartwright, M. J. (2005). Some observations on the factors that influence strategies for educational improvement in post-1992 universities. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 10(3), 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clegg, S. (2008). Academic identities under threat? British Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elton, L. (2000). The UK research assessment exercise: Unintended consequences. Higher Educat7ion Quarterly, 54(3), 274–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Filippakou, O., Salter, B., & Tapper, T. (2010). Compliance, resistance and seduction: Reflections on 20 years of the funding council model of governance. Higher Education, 60(5), 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harley, S. (2002). The impact of research selectivity on academic work and identity in UK universities. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Henkel, M. (2000). Academic identities and policy change in higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  10. McNay, I. (1997). The impact of the research assessment exercise on institutional and individual behaviour in english higher education, M 5/97. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council.Google Scholar
  11. McNay, I. (2003). Assessing the assessment: An analysis of the UK research assessment exercise, 2001, and its outcomes, with special reference to research in education. Science and Public Policy, 30(1), 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sharp, S. (2004). The research assessment exercises 1992–2001: Patterns across time and subjects. Studies in Higher Education, 29(2), 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sharp, S., & Coleman, S. (2005). Ratings in the research assessment exercise 2001-The patterns of university status and panel membership. Higher Education Quarterly, 59(2), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shattock, M. (2012). Making policy in british higher education, 1945–2011. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, T. (1987). The UGC’s research rankings exercise. Higher Education Quarterly, 41(4), 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tapper, T. (2007). The governance of british higher education: The struggle for policy control. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tapper, T., & Palfreyman, D. (2000). Oxford and the decline of the collegiate tradition. London: Woburn P.Google Scholar
  18. Tapper, T., & Palfreyman, D. (2010). The collegial tradition in the age of mass higher education. Dordrecht, London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yokoyama, K. (2006). The effect of the research assessment exercise on organisational culture in english universities: Collegiality versus managerialism. Tertiary Education and Management, 12(4), 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Electronic Sources and Websites

  1. Lancaster University. (2016). University of Lancaster: Research. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/research/.
  2. Research assessment exercise (RAE). (2008). Results: Quality profile. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from http://www.rae.ac.uk/results/qualityProfile.aspx.
  3. Roberts, G. (2003). Review of research assessment, report by Sir Gareth Roberts to the UK funding bodies. Retrieved January 30, 2016, from http://www.ra-review.ac.uk/reports/roberts.asp.
  4. Russell group. (2017). Russell group: About us. Retrieved March 20, 2017, from http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/.
  5. Stern, N. (2017). Building on success and learning from experience: An independent review of the research excellence framework [The Stern Review]. Retrieved December 30, 2017, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/upload.
  6. The Guardian. (2008). Quality profiles for RAE 2008. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from www.theguardian.com/education/table/2008.
  7. University of East Anglian. (2016). University of East Anglia: Research performance. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from https://www.uea.ac.uk/research/research-performance.
  8. University of Essex. (2016). University of Essex: Our research excellence. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from https://www.essex.ac.uk/research.
  9. University of Kent. (2016). University of Kent: Research excellence framework 2014. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from https://www.kent.ac.uk/research/ref2014/.
  10. University of Sussex. (2016). University of Sussex: Our research. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/research/about/.
  11. University of Warwick. (2016). University of Warwick: Research excellence framework 2014. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/ref2014/.
  12. University of York. (2016). University of York: Research excellence framework 2014. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from https://www.york.ac.uk/research/performance/ref-2014-results/.

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationBrunel University LondonUxbridgeUK
  2. 2.Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies (OxCheps)New College, OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations