Social Policy Excellence - Peer Review or Metrics? Analyzing the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise in Social Work and Social Policy and Administration

Social Policy and Administration

Volumn 46, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 526-543

  Mckay, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Metrics; Peer review; Research assessment; Research Assessment Exercise

Indexed keywords

ADMINISTRATION; MEASUREMENT METHOD; RESEARCH WORK; SOCIAL POLICY; SOCIAL WORK;

EID: 84866176473     PISSN: 01445596     EISSN: 14679515     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2011.00824.x     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Butler, L. and McAllister, I. (2009), Metrics or peer review? Evaluating the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise in Political Science, Political Studies Review, 7: 3-17.
2. Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (2011), Consultation on draft panel criteria and working methods, July, http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2011/03_11/03_11.pdf (accessed 20 May 2011).
3. Johnes, J., Taylor, J. and Francis, B. (1993), The research performance of UK universities: a statistical analysis of the results of the 1989 research selectivity exercise, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 156, 2: 271-86.
4. Mahdi, S., D'Este, P. and Neely, A. (2008), Citation Counts: Are They Good Predictors of Rae Scores? A Bibliometric Analysis of RAE 2001, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1154053 (accessed 20 May 2011).
5. McKay, S. (2003), Quantifying Quality: Can quantitative data ('metrics') explain the 2001 RAE ratings for social policy and administration? Social Policy & Administration, 37, 5: 444-67.
6. Norris, M. and Oppenheim, C. (2003), Citation counts and the Research Assessment Exercise V: Archaeology and the 2001 RAE, Journal of Documentation, 56, 6: 709-30.
7. Oppenheim, C. (1995), The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 Research Assessment ratings for British library and information science university departments, Journal of Documentation, 51, 1: 18-27.
8. Papke, L. and Wooldridge, J. (1996), Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) plan participation rates, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11: 619-32.
9. Social Work and Social Policy & Administration Panel (SW&SPA Panel) (2006), Working methods (RAE 01/2006(J)), http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2006/01/docs/j40.pdf (accessed 20 May 2011).
10. Taylor, J. (2011), The assessment of research quality in UK universities: Peer review or metrics? British Journal of Management, 22: 202-17.
11. Weale, A. (2009), Metrics versus Peer Review? Political Studies Review, 7, 1: 39-49.
12. Willmott, H. (2011), Journal list fetishism and the perversion of scholarship: reactivity and the ABS list, Organization, 18, 4: 429-42.