The UK research assessment exercise and the narrowing of UK economics

Cambridge Journal of Economics

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 693-717

  Lee, Frederic S ^a   Pham, Xuan ^b   Gu, Gyun ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY   (United States)

^b U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE   (United States)

^c Korea Institute for Local FInance   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Research assessment exercise; UK economics

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; RESEARCH;

UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84880591299     PISSN: 0309166X     EISSN: 14643545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/cje/bet031     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Alberti, M. 2012. Mainstream economists on the defensive, Remapping Debate, available at http:// www.remappingdebate.org/article/mainstream-economists-defensive (date last accessed 10 June 2013)
2. Beath, J. 2002. RAE rankings and top journals: John Beath comments, Royal Economic Society Newsletter, no. 119, 6
3. Bence, V. and Oppenheim, C. 2005. The evolution of the UK's Research Assessment Exercise: publications, performance and perceptions, Journal of Educational Administration and History, vol. 37, no. 2, 137-55
4. Coyle, D. 2013. Teaching economics after the crisis: report from the steering group, Royal Economic Society Newsletter, no. 161, 20-3, http://www.res.org.uk/SpringboardWebApp/ userfiles/res/file/newsletters/RESNLApr13.pdf (date last accessed 9 May 2013)
5. Conference of Heads of University Departments of Economics (CHUDE). 2003-10. Minutes, available at http://www.res.org.uk/view/chudeMinutes.html (date last accessed 10 June 2013)
6. Da Silva, S. 2009. Going parochial in the assessment of the Brazilian economics research output, Economic Bulletin, vol. 29, no. 4, 2826-46, available at http://works.bepress.com/sergiodasilva/ 88/ (date last accessed 10 June 2013)
7. Diamond, A. 1989. The core journals of economics, Current Contents, vol. 21, 4-11
8. Earl, P. E., and Peng, T.-C. 2012. Economics fit for the queen: barriers and opportunities, in Lee, F. S. and Lavoie, M. (eds.), In Defense of Post-Keynesian and Heterodox Economics: Responses to Their Critics, London, Routledge
9. ESRC. 2008. International Benchmarking Review of UK Economics, available at http://www.esrc. ac.uk/_images/Int_benchmarking_economics_tcm8-4552.pdf (date last accessed 10 June 2013)
10. Freeman, A. 2006. Submission from the Association for Heterodox Economics to the consultation on the QAA Benchmark Statement on Economics, available at http://www.hetecon.net/ documents/ResearchAssessment/Teaching-2006-QAA-Benchmark.pdf (date last accessed 10 June 2013)
11. Freeman, A. 2008. Submission from the Association for Heterodox Economics to the International Benchmarking Review on Research Assessment, available at http://www. hetecon.net/documents/ResearchAssessment/Teaching-2008-InternationalBenchmarking. pdf (date last accessed 10 June 2013)
12. Freeman, A. 2011. Submission from the Association for Heterodox Economics to the Science, and Technology Committee Enquiry into Peer Review, available at http://www.hetecon.net/ documents/ResearchAssessment/PeerReviewConsultationAHE.pdf (date last accessed 10 June 2013)
13. Gillies, D. 2012. Economics and research assessment systems, Economic Thought, vol. 1, 23-47, available at http://etdiscussion.worldeconomicsassociation.org/?post=economics-and-research -assessment-systems (date last accessed 10 June 2013)
14. Gomez-Suarez, A. 2007. Perpetrator blocs, genocidal mentalities and geographies: the destruction of the Union Patriotica in Columbia and its lessons for genocide studies, Journal of Genocide Research, vol. 9, no. 4, 637-60
15. Gordge, E. 2010. Personal communication, 28 September
16. Halkos, G. E., and Tzeremes, N. G. 2011. Measuring economic journals' citation efficiency: a data envelopment analysis approach, Scientometrics, vol. 88, no. 3, 979-1001
17. Harley, S. and Lee, F. S. 1997. Research selectivity, managerialism, and the academic labor process: the future of nonmainstream economics in U.K. universities, Human Relations, vol. 50, no. 11, 1427-60
18. Jacobs, S. L. 2005. Language death and revival after cultural destruction: reflections on a little discussed aspect of genocide, Journal of Genocide Research, vol. 7, no. 3, 423-30
19. Kalaitzidakis, P., Mamuneas, T. P. and Stengos, T. 2011. An update ranking of academic journals in economics, Canadian Journal of Economics, vol. 44, no. 4, 1525-38
20. Kogan, M. and Hanney, S. 2000. Reforming Higher Education, London, Jessica Kingsley
21. Lee, F. S. 2006. The ranking game, class, and scholarship in American mainstream economics, Australasian Journal of Economics Education, vol. 3, nos. 1-2, 1-41
22. Lee, F. S. 2007. The Research Assessment Exercise, the state and the dominance of mainstream economics in British universities, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 31, no. 2, 309-25
23. Lee, F. S. 2009a. A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the Mainstream in the Twentieth Century, London, Routledge
24. Lee, F. S. 2009b. Appendix to A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the Mainstream in the Twentieth Century, available at http://www.heterodoxnews.com/leefs/documents
25. Lee, F. S. 2011. The pluralism debate in heterodox economics, Review of Radical Political Economics, vol. 43, no. 4, 540-51
26. Lee, F. S., and Harley, S. 1998. Peer review, the Research Assessment Exercise and the demise of non-mainstream economics, Capital and Class, no. 66, 23-51
27. Levy, G. 2006. Considerations on the connections between race, politics, economics, and genocide, Journal of Genocide Research, vol. 8, no. 2, 137-48
28. Martin, B. and Whitley, R. 2010. The UK Research Assessment Exercise: a case of regulatory capture?, in Whitley, R., Glaser, J. and Engwell, L. (eds.), Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, Oxford, Oxford University Press
29. Morris, N. 2010. Authority relations as conditions for and outcome of shifts in governance: the limited impact of the Research Assessment Exercise on the biosciences, pp. 239-265 in Whitley, R., Glaser, J. and Engwell, L. (eds), Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, Oxford, Oxford University Press
30. Neary, P. 2011. Personal communication, 3 May
31. Nedeva, M., Boden, R., and Nugroho, Y. 2012. Rank and file: managing individual performance in university research, Higher Education Policy, vol. 25, 335-60
32. Portes, R. 2008. The annual report of the secretary-general, Royal Economic Society Newsletter, no. 141, 3-5
33. Powell, C. 2011. Barbaric Civilization: A Critical Sociology of Genocide, Montreal, McGill-Queen's University Press
34. Research Assessment Exercise. 2008. Nominating bodies, available at http://www.rae.ac.uk/ pubs/2004/03/bodies.asp#c (date last accessed 10 June 2013)
35. Research Excellence Framework. 2010. Units of assessment, and recruitment of expert panels, REF 01/2010, available at http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/unitsofassessmentandrecruitmentofexpertpanels/ 01_10.pdf (date last accessed 10 June 2013)
36. Research Excellence Framework. 2012. Panel criteria and working methods, REF 01/2012, available at http://www.ref.ac.uk/pubs/2012-01 (date last accessed 10 June 2013)
37. Ritzberger, K. 2008. A ranking of journals in economics and related fields, German Economic Review, vol. 9, no. 4, 402-30
38. Schneider, F. and Ursprung, H. W. 2008. The 2008 GEA journal-ranking for the economics profession, German Economic Review, vol. 9, no. 4, 532-38
39. Tapper, T. and Salter, B. 2003. Interpreting the process of change in higher education: the case of the Research Assessment Exercise, Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 57, no. 1, 4-23
40. Whitley, R. 2007. Changing governance of the public sciences: the consequences of establishing research evaluation systems for knowledge production in different countries and scientific fields, in Whitley, R. and Glaser, J. (eds.), The Changing Governance of the Sciences: The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems, Dordrecht, Springer
41. Williams, B. 1993. Research management for selectivity and concentration-with what effect?, Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 1, 4-16