Research cash: Lost in the detail

It is the eternal dilemma of the British university system: how to promote fairness and equity across the board, while being sure not to undermine the country's prized academic elite? If the latest Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is any guide, it seems higher education funding chiefs are still a long way from the answer.

The controversy surrounding the RAE centres on the new method used in the seven-yearly survey, which abandons the old system of assigning each university department a single score, from 1 to 5*. Instead, individual members of staff are assessed on the quality of their research, and the department judged on the proportion of its researchers who reach the higher levels of a four-point scale. The RAE allots more than bragging rights: it is used to determine the distribution of £1.5 billion of government cash and, while the details of the next funding round have yet to be decided, it seems likely that any department that has produced any work deemed worthy of the 4*—“world-leading”—ranking will receive designated funds.

The old system struck many as grotesquely simplistic – how can an entire university department be summed up adequately in a single number? But in many ways, this broad perspective made sense. A consistently well-run, highly achieving department will have an incalculably greater impact on its field than one which sporadically produces pieces of research considered “world-leading.” But under the new system, the division between exceptional and generally mediocre departments has become blurred – and millions of pounds will now be diverted from the former to the latter. In a choice between the extremes of simplicity and complexity, the RAE seems to have embraced the greater of two evils. As the London School of Economics' Ray Paul put it, “this method of assessment is similar to assessing the quality of a lawn by measuring the length of each blade of grass – you get a measure, but of what?”

As Bristol vice-chancellor Eric Thomas makes clear on page 13, our leading universities are presently facing a tough fight to remain financially competitive. The projected £140m cut in research funding faced by the Russell Group universities is no laughing matter. Les Ebdon, head of the Million+ group, voiced the triumphant sentiments among the new universities—many of which are anticipating a huge rise in funding—saying: “If these people [in the Russell Group] are as good as they say they are, they will have no trouble finding the money elsewhere.” But alternative sources of funding in the private sector, with a need to invest in research that makes business sense, will be far less willing than the state to fund research if it looks unlikely to yield a profit – no matter how academically significant it might be. Top-level research in less fashionable fields, now with diminished support from the government, could be in for a rough ride.