Lansley, P (2007) Making sense of research quality assessment. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14(1), pp. 7-25. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose – For many academics in UK universities the nature and orientation of their research is overwhelmingly determined by considerations of how that work will be graded in research assessment exercises (RAEs). The grades awarded to work in a particular subject area can have a considerable impact on the individual and their university. There is a need to better understand those factors which may influence these grades. The paper seeks to address this issue. Design/methodology/approach – The paper considers relationships between the grades awarded and the quantitative information provided to the assessment panels for the 1996 and 2001 RAEs for two subject areas, built environment and town and country planning, and for three other subject areas, civil engineering, geography and archaeology, in the 2001 RAE. Findings – A simple model demonstrating strong and consistent relationships is established. RAE performance relates to numbers of research active staff, the production of books and journal papers, numbers of research studentships and graduations, and research income. Important differences between subject areas are identified. Research limitations/implications – Important issues are raised about the extent to which the new assessment methodology to be adopted for the 2008 RAE will capture the essence of good quality research in architecture and built environment. Originality/value – The findings provide a developmental perspective of RAEs and show how, despite a changed methodology, various research activities might be valued in the 2008 RAE. The basis for a methodology for reviewing the credibility of the judgements of panels is proposed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | performance measures; quality assessment; research; United Kingdom; universities |
| Index terms: | built environment, income, archaeology, exercise, methodology, journal, performance measure, United Kingdom, quality assessment |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, research dissemination and communication, health behaviours and lifestyles, infrastructure and transport systems, quality assurance, performance measurement, research methods, Geography |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Quality Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here