The Impact of Research Selectivity on Academic Work and Identity in UK Universities

At the same time as policy-makers, academic gatekeepers and institutional managements would have us believe that research selectivity is now an acceptable part of academic life, UK university departments are anxiously digesting the results of their submissions to the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). This article reports responses to a survey of academic staff in social science and business-related disciplines, carried out immediately after the results of the last RAE. This indicates that a significant proportion of academic staff are hostile to the exercise, believing the result to be the mass production of research for a rating which is more important than what is produced, and a reorganisation of academic work in ways which violate traditional academic values. There was, nevertheless, a high degree of compliance with the perceived demands of the RAE. Responses show that UK academics are co-implicated in the implementation of a mechanism perceived to be fundamentally flawed because of its high identity value, and for this reason playing the RAE game is likely continue to legitimate the unequal distribution of research funds in UK universities into the twenty-first century despite the high levels of disaffection found.

[1]  G. Whittington.  THE 1996 RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISE , 1997 .

[2]  Research assessment: as strange a maze as e'er men trod , 1995 .

[3]  D. Owen,et al.  Questioning the value of the research selectivity process in British university accounting , 1995 .

[4]  R. Whitley.  The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences (Second Edition: with new introductory chapter entitled 'Science Transformed? The Changing Nature of Knowledge Production at the End of the Twentieth Century') , 1984 .

[5]  H. Willmott,et al.  Systems Of Surveillance And The Silencing Of UK Academic Accounting Labour , 1994 .

[6]  M. Henkel.  Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education , 2000 .

[7]  Sean Howard,et al.  The Research Assessment Exercise , 1998 .

[8]  J. Dearlove.  The academic labour process: from collegiality and professionalism to managerialism and proletarianisation? , 1997 .

[9]  M. Henkel.  Academic Values and the University as Corporate Enterprise , 1997 .

[10]  Frederic S. Lee,et al.  Peer Review, the Research Assessment Exercise and the Demise of Non-Mainstream Economics , 1998 .

[11]  B. Macfarlane.  In search of an identity: lecturer perceptions of the business studies first degree , 1997 .

[12]  M. Dent.  Hospitals and New Ways of Organising Medical Work in Europe: Standardisation of Medicine in the Public Sector and the Future of Medical Autonomy , 1998 .

[13]  Hugh Willmott,et al.  Just How Managed is the McUniversity? Craig Prichard, Hugh Willmott , 1997 .

[14]  C. Hughes,et al.  Writing on academic careers , 1998 .

[15]  Colin Scott,et al.  Regulation Inside Government , 1999 .

[16]  James Guthrie,et al.  Accounting and management research: passwords from the gatekeepers , 1998 .

[17]  Sandra Harley,et al.  Accountants divided: research selectivity and academic accounting labour in UK universities , 2000 .

[18]  Nigel F. Piercy,et al.  Commentary: Why it is fundamentally stupid for a business school to try to improve its research assessment exercise score , 2000 .

[19]  Frederic S. Lee,et al.  Research Selectivity, Managerialism, and the Academic Labor Process: The Future of Nonmainstream Economics in U.K. Universities , 1997 .

[20]  David,et al.  The 1996 Research Assessment Exercise for Business and Management , 1998 .

[21]  A. Halsey.  The Decline of Donnish Dominion , 1982 .