WIMBLEDON SCHOOL OF ART
Date: 30 November 2002
To:HEFCE STEERING GROUP
Joint Funding Bodies’ Review of Research Assessment
RESPONSE FROM WIMBLEDON SCHOOL OF ART
Wimbledon is pleased to contribute to the discussion on the review of research assessment because of the opportunity it provides to express the views of a small specialist art and design institution whose central focus concerns the relationship between learning and teaching and research.
Given HEFCE’s statement that the output of the consultation will be a number of models of research assessment, we believe that the consultation should consider using a range of approaches and metrics according to institution size and subject coverage. Wimbledon School of Art would prefer adoption of particular and appropriate models of assessment as opposed to a ‘single preferred option’ covering all subject areas. This is of concern to WSA as models of assessment based on inappropriate criteria could have a serious negative impact on the financial health of the institution.
We are of the view that assessing the contribution HEIs make to the development of researchers (i.e. infrastructure) as well as output should be supported, as should the emphasis on the ‘people dimension’ – the contribution an HEI makes to the supply and development of researchers. WSA’s own strategic research implementation emphasises the development of a supportive infrastructure for student and staff research, centred on clusters and projects as well as individuals. Assessment should look at both the development of infrastructure and the degree of change in the research culture – changing the culture is an achievement of greater institutional significance and long term benefit than individual research ‘publications’ or ‘exhibitions’, and the RAE should develop to encompass these achievements in progressing national and international research capacity.
If HEFCE want to recognise/reward “all aspects of excellence in research” then appropriate and wide-ranging ways of identifying excellence need to be developed. While statistical metrics and peer review methods may be employed it should be recognised that neither provide a guaranteed relationship between ‘success’ and ‘excellence’.
In the following we respond to the specific points raised in the Invitation to Contribute document. The numbering relates to the paragraph numbers in Annex B: Notes for facilitators:
Group1:6While review of research by experts enables specialists to consider the work of others the ‘peer review’ process raises a number of issues especially in a small and competitively-funded subject area like art and design. In its present form peer review is retrospective rather than developmental. Also ‘Vanity publishing’ is a real concern, affecting not only art and humanities, but sciences as well.
Group1:7:bObjective data to be assessed could include examination of success in obtaining funding, detailed accounts of collaboration, growth and development of clusters, attachment of PhD students to projects, and embedding of research in taught curricula. Assessment, however, needs to be sensitive to the size of the institution and its particular areas of research focus.
Group1:7:c Assessments should be made at the level of research groups / clusters across the institution and where appropriate in collaboration with other institutions. Traditionally the RAE has encouraged competition between institutions; it would be better to focus on the quality of research issues / groups / clusters within institutions.
Group 1:7:dResearch groups or clusters provide an alternative to relying upon assessment according to subjects alone.
Group 2:8Algorithmic methods of assessment present particular problems in an art and design context; potentially they might be used beneficially for measurements relating to research support/infrastructure.
Group 2:8/10Statistical evaluation based on quantitative metrics is potentially problematic: taking quantity as a measure of quality is not necessarily possible in art and design. For example, raw data concerning the number of research students in an HEI, or the number of trained supervisors, reveals nothing per se about the quality of research in the institution. Measurements based on external research income would be highly disadvantageous for Art & Design HEIs whose research might not include an external, industrial, commercial or financial relationship.
Group 2:9/10It is not acceptable to assess research entirely on the basis of metrics especially in a field where qualitative judgments are made.
Group 2:10:eWith a national trend towards “super-universities” and a reduced number of “research universities”, smaller and specialist HEIs could be disadvantaged in research assessment criteria, and therefore funding. However, many of these institutions are forming collaborative partnerships which will require flexibility on the part of future assessment exercises.
Group 4HEFCE want to know “what matters to interested parties”. For an HEI such as Wimbledon, even a small perceived change in research ‘excellence’ can have a dramatic effect on funding: stability is vital. Also, research that is relevant, and has a beneficial impact on the HEI’s other activities (i.e. teaching and learning) should be supported.
Group 4:14A retrospective rating based on historical performance is a disincentive when compared to an assessment of the development of research which takes account of the enhancement which the institution is making to its research activities and provision.
Group 4.15Changes in ‘performance’ should be measured on a like-for-like system comparing clusters or research groupings, rather than comparisons between institutions.
Group 5:17:aAn assessment of the research base should be used to support and encourage a diverse and developmental research culture appropriate to the range of subjects covered across institutions.
Group 5:17:bResearch should be assessed on the length of 2 Full time PhDs, i.e. every 6/7 years. This allows for the time it takes for research to develop and will give a more meaningful picture than the current exercise.
Group 5:17:cExcellence in research is the proven reputation of research cultures supported by and fully embedded within their institutions. Excellence in research is the importance of the contribution made to subject knowledge and the research culture.
Group 5:17:eInstitutions should not be assessed in the same way, but comparable clusters might be because institutions are less directly comparable than areas of research.
Group 5:17:gInstitutions should have discretion in putting together their submissions, but within clear and explicit guidelines, published well in advance of the assessment (at least 5 years, so that institutions can develop appropriate research cultures and clusters).
Group 5:17:hThe RAE can be used to support equality of treatment in HE by minimising the huge effect it can have on the well-being, financial security and academic identity of an institution.
Group 5:17:iThe most important features of an assessment process are to identify and support good research, promote research as a worthwhile career, facilitate the embedding of research within academic programmes, and to generate opportunity and incentives instead of a culture of fear and negative competition.