The nursing research assessment exercise 2001: An analysis
Section snippets
Background
The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) distributes public money for teaching and research to universities and colleges. It employs the research assessment exercise (RAE) to allocate funds. The RAE is the main measure of UK research reputation and a major source of funding. In 2002–3 the total funding for research from HEFCE (which was distributed based on RAE rankings) was £910 million, and in 2005–6 is predicted to be £1,251 million (figures obtained from www.rae.ac.uk and //www.hefce.ac.uk/
Methodology
The RAE databases for UoAs 10 and 11 were downloaded from the HEFCE HERO website. The tables in each database were merged into an SPSS datafile.
For both UoA 10 and 11 data were checked and obvious errors corrected. Most data cleaning consisted of making journal titles consistent. Common problems were presence or absence of full stops (periods), use of definite article or not, double spaces, inconsistent use of “and” and ampersand, and occasional typographical errors, as seen in other
Results of UoA 10
In the 2001 RAE submissions were rated in seven bands: 1, 2, 3b, 3a, 4, 5 and 5∗. A rating of one indicates research work at less than national level, and a 5∗/5 were the top grades where all or almost all work was of international level.
Nursing was the lowest rated UoA in the 2001 RAE, as it was in 1992 and 1996 (Anthony, 1997, Robinson et al., 2002). Only four institutes gained a five, and none gained a five star, see Table 1.
Data submitted for evaluation consisted of research activity
Publication type
Mean (average) RAE ratings were computed within SPSS, on a seven point scale where 1 = 1, 2 = 2, 3b = 3, 3a = 4, 4 = 5, 5 = 6 and 5∗ = 7. Journal articles scored higher than authored books, chapters in books or conference contributions, though lower than edited books, see Table 3. While internet publications via subscription scored most highly, there were only nine of them, and they were all from the Cochrane Library, and seven were from one institute, the University of York.
Journal publications
A maximum of four papers were allowed to be entered in the 2001 RAE. In some cases an academic may not have four papers in top rated journals, and they may elect to enter fewer, or put in less prestigious or less obviously research based items. Most (n = 2206, 87.5%) submissions were in journals, and most of the rest (7.5%) were books or chapters in books. 542 journals were entered, but of these 316 (14.3% of submissions) were only entered once. 50% of submissions were from 39 journals. The most
Comparison with UoA 11
UoA 11 covered a wide range of professions, biomedical sciences; nutrition; optometry; radiography; occupational therapy; physiotherapy; speech and language therapy; art, music and drama therapy; health promotion; and other studies and professions allied to medicine.
UoA 11 showed different predictors using regression analysis, with specific funding sources rather than total funding being significant, see Table 8. UK charities and research students were positive and conference articles and EU
Limitations
After accounting for quantitative measures new universities scored lower than would have been expected in social policy (McKay, 2003). Measures of esteem may be the explanation, but were not analysed in UoA 10 or 11 for reasons given in the text. Membership on the panel may be a factor, indeed all the five rated institutes in UoA 10 and none of the 1,2 or 3b scores were represented in the panel (Robinson et al., 2002) in the 2001 RAE, though as Robinson et al state “Cause and effect are
Discussion
In UoA 10 funding appeared to be the most reliable predictor for high ratings. Doctorates awarded was correlated significantly with RAE rating. The fact that this variable does not remain in the regression equation may be due to the fact the funding produces more doctoral students. However in UoA 11 the type of funding and the number of doctoral students were the most predictive factors.
Journal publications had higher ratings than conference proceedings or chapters in books in both UoA 10 and
References (15)
How the RAE works... research assessment exercise
Nursing Standard
(2002)Payout ends dispute over RAE ranking
Nursing Standard
(2002)A review of statistical methods in the Journal of Advanced Nursing
Journal of Advanced Nursing
(1996)Funding research in nursing: results of the RAE... Research Assessment Exercise
Nursing Standard
(1997)Understanding advanced statistics: A guide for nurses and health care researchers
(1999)- et al.
Journal rankings in Business and Management and the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise in the UK
British journal of management
(2004) - et al.
The ’invisible’ nursing RAE 2001 – an analysis
Nurse Researcher
(2003)