---

Universities: Research Assessment Exercise

My Lords, I declare an interest as an academic and as a head of a university department. However, as always in your Lordships’ House, I speak solely in a personal capacity. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on raising this important and timely Question. The research assessment exercise figures prominently—some may think too prominently—in academic life. I have been involved in every research assessment exercise. There can be little doubt that the RAE has served its purpose in having a ratchet effect on research output. It has had a salutary effect on universities and has served to drive up standards. That is my starting point. I do not question the purpose of the exercise. Rather, what I want to focus upon, following the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is some of the associated practical problems and how those can inform the discussion as to where we go from here. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has focused particularly on the financial side. Given that, I intend to focus on slightly different aspects. Two particular concerns are those of burden and uncertainty. By burden, I refer to the sheer time and effort required by the exercise. The RAE may be effective, but it has not always been efficient. I recognise the value of peer review—about which I had some strange comments once I got my peerage—but I have always argued that it may be possible to utilise it in a more efficient manner. There are two aspects to the burden. One is the amount of time and effort that is necessary to prepare for the RAE. Having a research output is necessary, but not sufficient. The problem for some, especially those engaged in the review, is that the time taken up by the exercise consumes valuable research time. The other aspect is that the RAE is not the only burden imposed on academics. As the Minister is well aware, this is something that I have previously raised in your Lordships’ House. Though many of the different burdens placed on academics may be justified on their individual merits, the collective effect is to create a significant workload which impedes fulfilling the core tasks of teaching and research. Of particular concern is that it also undermines morale. This particular concern has been recognised and clearly informs the Government in deciding what should replace the current RAE. I very much welcome the fact that one of the principles that will inform future arrangements, as adumbrated in last week’s Treasury document referred to by the noble Lord, is that,"““the burden on HEIs should be minimised and only the information necessary to ensure a fair distribution of funds should be collected””." I endorse that and the other principles listed, as well as the clear statement that in discussing future funding arrangements those principles will be adhered to. For reasons of time, I will focus on the other area of concern, which is addressed implicitly in one of the principles listed but which I believe needs to be drawn out and emphasised. I refer to the need for greater certainty in the assessment arrangements. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, touched upon, in universities we have never really had a steady-state situation. I do not mean to imply that academics expect everything to be set in stone, but some degree of continuity is needed, with the assessment criteria clearly identified in good time and then adhered to. This problem is a matter of real and current concern. There is some degree of uncertainty, exacerbated by the Treasury document to which the noble Lord referred, in respect of the RAE and, obviously, of what will follow it. The next steps document includes among the principles to be adhered to that of allowing HEIs to plan effectively. I understand where this comes from, given the movements of staff that take place towards the end of an RAE period. That gets at one aspect of the problem from the perspective of universities as institutions, but my concern is as much with those who work in the universities as with the institutional authorities. Academics need to know what is happening with the present RAE and what the thinking is as to what will replace it. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s response on two points. The first concerns the statements embodied in paragraph 4.18 of the next steps document. It recognises that preparations for the 2008 RAE are well under way. Indeed they are; they have been for some considerable time. A great deal of time, planning and resources has been invested. However, the paragraph states:"““If an alternative system is agreed and widely supported, and a clear majority of UK universities were in favour of an earlier move to a simpler system, the Government would be willing to consider that””." My concern here is that, with a cut-off point for the 2008 RAE not far away, academics are busy preparing, while wondering whether they are suddenly going to find some other assessment method employed. Perhaps the Minister could explain what ““alternative system”” is being referred to, what discussions are taking place and what sort of time frame is involved. The second point on which I would welcome the Minister’s response concerns what will replace the RAE after 2008. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, the Government favour a system that is metrics-based. However, as the next steps document concedes, this is appropriate especially for science, engineering and medicine. It is not clear that it would be appropriate for the social sciences or for the arts and humanities. The Government say that they will explore the option of continuing to convene expert panels to provide an extra level of verification for the results generated by metrics. However, if different methodologies are employed, how will that affect interdisciplinary research? If the research crosses the boundaries between the sciences and the arts, what will be the most appropriate method of assessment? It will be extremely helpful to hear more of the Government’s thinking on this and their intentions as to the future timetable beyond the proposed consultation on the preferred option for a metrics-based system. The present review and the proposed consultation appear relatively narrow in that they focus on a metrics system. It is not clear how the needs of the social sciences, and the arts and humanities, will be addressed. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is essential that the research excellence and the contribution to wealth creation of the social sciences, as well as of the arts and humanities, should not appear in any way to be sidelined. I reiterate my opening point that the RAE has served to push up standards. There is no dispute about the purpose of the exercise, and I welcome the principles that will guide the future allocation of research funds. My concern is with the detail. We need to get it right. That is absolutely essential, and I endorse all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. We need to achieve a light touch and we need to ensure that, once we have achieved a clear and effective light-touch regime, we stick with it.