---

Universities: Research Assessment Exercise

My Lords, it was a great privilege to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Rees, making is maiden speech and I look forward to hearing from him on many occasions. I have a bare-faced cheek to speak on this subject in the presence of so many experts, when I have no specialist knowledge of the subject. But I was stirred by the statement of the Chancellor in his Budget that the Government are setting out plans for a radically simplified allocation of the research funding that goes direct to universities. I understand that a study group has been, or is being, set up to come forward with proposals of metrics by the end of May for consultation. There seems to be a sense of briskness, in response to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that we must resolve this quickly. At least two references have been made to the study led by Gareth Roberts in 2003. I want in particular to quote the words at the beginning of his conclusion:"““Some of us believed at the outset of the process that there might be some scope for assessing research on the basis of performance indicators, thereby dispensing with the need for a complex and labour-intensive assessment process””." He goes on to say:"““Whilst we recognise that metrics may be useful in helping assessors to reach judgements on the value of research, we are now convinced that the only system””," is as the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said. His first recommendation is that,"““any system of research assessment designed to identify the best research must be based on the judgment of experts, who may if they choose, employ performance indicators to inform their judgement””." There was a review of this issue by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee the following year. It chided the funding councils for not taking fuller notice of the Roberts recommendations and suggested a range of measures which could be used to replace the peer review process in some areas, such as the physical sciences. It wanted this studied but doubted it would have been in time for the 2008 review. How much more that must be true of whether it would be possible and wise to do so starting in 2006 rather than in 2004. My whole experience of education has included, time and time again, occasions when important issues have been grasped and decisions implemented before they have been fully validated. The Government would be wise to move with due care in any changes. Gareth Roberts, to whom I have referred, indicated in an article he wrote in 2005 that he was impressed with the progress that had been made in developing and refining metrics. He has thought in terms of metrics running in parallel as a contributor to the methodology. He has said, as others have said, that the RAE has achieved some of the purposes for which it was created in increasing the quality and volume of research work. But, even though the tide—clearly in the Chancellor’s mind—is going the way of moving with care, the criticisms of the RAE that have been voiced today have been mainly to do with the extent to which it is the thief of valuable time and how a bureaucracy develops bureaucracy. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, suggested that the direct costs of academics and whoever is engaged in the panels was £45 million. He mentioned a much greater opportunity cost but I shall just take the direct cost of £45 million, which is less than 1 per cent of the grants made under the RAE over a five or six-year period. For a system that allocates £6 billion or £7 billion, 1 per cent of the cost does not seem unduly expensive to me. It has been suggested in an article by Barham Bekhradnia, who is the head of the Higher Education Policy Institute, in today’s Independent that the cost of the research councils per pound expended is very much higher. I have heard of a figure of four times as much; he quoted a figure of 10. Although I cannot validate those figures, it sheds some light on the fact that the RAE may be cost-effective in direct terms. I think that the time has come to recognise that metrics have a major role to play—but, from what I hear, they are not fit for purpose in relation to the humanities, the arts, probably the social sciences and the law. We would be departing from a homogenous system if we were to move partially to one rather than the other. This suggests to me not to rush it. They should run as part of and alongside the 2008 review, but any willingness on the part of the Government—whatever the universities may say—to change it in an instant would be a touch unwise. I have one personal concern, to which the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, referred at the end of his remarks. That is on the importance of applied research in the reckoning of things. The United Kingdom, as has been said, scores highly in the outstanding quality of its curiosity-driven research, and in its quantity. Yet when it comes to reaping the benefits through products and services, we have not distinguished ourselves in terms of applications. I have read—I think this was in the Lambert review—that the American federal government commits $19 billion a year to university research, of which $4.4 billion or a touch over 20 per cent, if I recall his figure, is for applied research. With their specialist institutes, the Germans are also very good in that area. I would hope that if the metrics can develop in that way they will give weighting to applied research; or, perhaps, the issue is to see the third leg as a separate stream. I do not know the answer and do not think that anyone here today can say what the answers are. It is easy for us to criticise what we have; it is not so easy to say what should come in its place. Finally, I notice that the Chancellor referred to a threefold increase in the nation’s earnings from education. I was impressed; I hope he can do it. It is a touch difficult, so I hope that the Chancellor—having made that important statement—will give support to the British Council and the universities to enable them to achieve their share of that threefold increase.