Research assessment as governance technology in the United Kingdom: findings from a survey of RAE 2008 impacts;Forschungsrating als eine Kontrollmethode in Großbritannien – Ergebnisse einer Untersuchung zu den Auswirkungen von RAE 2008

Zeitschrift fur Erziehungswissenschaft

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 83-110

  Oancea, Alis ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Governance; Higher education; RAE; REF; Research assessment; Research quality

Indexed keywords

EID: 84913525606     PISSN: 1434663X     EISSN: 18625215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11618-014-0575-5     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Bang, H. (Ed.). (2003). Governance as social and political communication. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
2. Besley, T., & Peters, M. (2009). Neoliberalism, performance and the assessment of educational research quality: Comparing United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. In T. Besley (Ed.), Assessing the quality of educational research in higher education. International perspectives (pp. 27–48). Rotterdam: Sense.
3. Blatter, J. (2012). Forms of political governance: Theoretical foundations and ideal types (Working Paper 07). Lucerne: Department of Political Science, University of Lucerne.
4. Bridges, D. (2009). Assessing the quality of research in higher education: The United Kingdom Research Assessment Exercise. In T. Besley (Ed.), Assessing the quality of educational research in higher education. International perspectives (pp. 85–104). Rotterdam: Sense.
5. Brown, M. (2007). On promoting rigour—a response. Journal of Education Policy,22, 353–356.
6. Brown, S. (2008). Research assessment in higher education: The impact on institutions, staff and educational research in Scotland. ACCESS: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies, 27, 141–151.
7. Coryn, CLS. (2009). Research governance by evaluation: A meta-evaluation of international systems for evaluating government-funded research. In T. Besley (Ed.), Assessing the quality of educational research in higher education. International perspectives (pp. 59–84). Rotterdam: Sense.
8. Currie, J. (2008). The Research Assessment Exercise in Hong Kong: Positive and negative consequences. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives,9, 53–68.
9. Dadds, M., & Kynch, C. (2003). The impact of the RAE 3b rating on educational research in teacher education departments. Research Intelligence,84, 8–11.
10. D’Andrea, V., & Gosling, D. (2005). Improving teaching and learning in higher education. A whole institution approach. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
11. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed). London: Sage.
12. Donovan, C. (2005). The governance of social science and everyday epistemology. Public Administration,83, 597–615.
13. Elton, L. (2000). The UK RAE: Unintended consequences. Higher Education Quarterly,54, 274–283.
14. Epstein, D., Boden, R., Deem, R., Rizvi, F., & Wright, S. (2008). Geographies of knowledge, geometries of power: Framing the future of higher education. London: Routledge.
15. Foucault, M. (1993). About the beginning of the hermeneutics of the self: Two lectures at Dartmouth (17 and 24 November 1980, ed. M. Blasius). Political Theory,21, 198–227.
16. Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population. London: Palgrave.
17. Furlong, J. (2013). Education: An anatomy of the discipline. London: Routledge.
18. Furlong, J., & Lawn, M. (Eds.). (2010). Disciplines of education: Their role in the future of education research. London: Routledge.
19. Harley, S. (2002). The impact of research selectivity on academic work and identity in UK universities. Studies in Higher Education,27, 187–205.
20. HEFCE (2009) Recurrent grants for 2009–10. 8/2009, March. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England. Online at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/data/year/2009/recurrentgrantsfor2009-10/. Accessed 19 Sep. 2014.
21. Henkel, M. (2000). Academic identities and policy change in higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley.
22. Holligan, C., Wilson, M., & Humes, W. (2011). Research cultures in English and Scottish university education departments: An exploratory study of academic staff perceptions. British Educational Research Journal,37, 713–734.
23. Jenkins, A. (1995). The Research Assessment Exercise, funding and teaching quality. Quality Assurance in Education,3, 4–12.
24. Kelly, A., & Burrows, R. (2011). Measuring the value of sociology? Some notes on performative metricization in the contemporary academy. The Sociological Review,59, 130–150.
25. Lucas, L. (2006). The research game in academic life. Maidenhead: SRHE/Open University Press.
26. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
27. Manfredi, S., & Vickers, L. (2009). The impact of the process to promote equality and diversity in the RAE 2008. London: Equality Challenge Unit.
28. McKenzie, J. (2001). Perform or else: From discipline to performance. London: Routledge.
29. McNay, I. (1997). The impact of the 1992 RAE on institutional and individual behaviour in English higher education. Bristol: HEFCE.
30. McNay, I. (2003). Assessing the assessment: An analysis of the UK Research Assessment Exercise, 2001, and its outcomes, with special reference to research in education. Science and Public Policy,30, 47–54.
31. Morley, L. (2001). Subjected to review. Engendering gender and power in higher education. Journal of Education Policy,16, 465–78.
32. Morley, L. (2003). Quality and power in higher education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
33. Oancea A. (2007). From Procrustes to Proteus: Trends and practices in the assessment of education research. International Journal for Research Methods in Education,30, 243–269.
34. Oancea, A. (2008). Performative accountability and the UK Research Assessment Exercise. ACCESS: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies,27, 153–173.
35. Oancea, A. (2010a). Research assessment in the United Kingdom: Issues of concern. In UNESCO & ISSC (Eds.), International Social Science Council (2010)World Social Science Report. Paris: UNESCO.
36. Oancea, A. (2010b). The BERA/ UCET Review of the Impacts of RAE 2008 on Education Research in UK Higher Education Institutions (Written with advice from J. Furlong and D. Bridges). Macclesfield: UCET/BERA.
37. Oancea, A. (2011). More, for less? Education research in the current financial and accountability contexts. Research Intelligence,114, 6–7.
38. Olssen, M. (2002). The Neo-liberal appropriation of tertiary education policy in New Zealand: Accountability, research and academic freedom. Wellington: New Zealand Association for Research in Education.
39. Olssen, M. (2011). The strange death of the liberal university: Research assessment and the impact of research. In R. King, S. Marginson, & R. Naidoo (Eds.), Handbook on Globalization and Higher Education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
40. O’Neill, O. (2002). A question of trust: The BBC Reith lectures 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Ovseiko, P. V., Oancea, A., & Buchan, A. M. (2012). Assessing research impact in academic clinical medicine: A study using Research Excellence Framework pilot impact indicators. BMC Health Services Research,12, 478.
42. Ozga, J. (1998). The entrepreneurial researcher: Re-formations of identity in the research marketplace. International Studies in Sociology of Education,8, 143–153.
43. Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. RAE. (2005). Guidance on submissions. RAE 3/2005, June. London: HEFCE, SHEFC, HEFCW, DELNI. Online at http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2005/03/rae0305.pdf. Accessed 19 Sep. 2014.
45. Ranson, S. (2003). Public accountability in the age of neo-liberal governance. Journal of Education Policy,18, 459–480.
46. Roberts, G. (2003) Review of research assessment. Report by Sir Gareth Roberts to the UK funding bodies. Online at http://www.ra-review.ac.uk/reports/roberts.asp. Accessed 19 Sep. 2014.
47. Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2000). Coercive accountability. The rise of audit culture in higher education. In M. Strathern (ed.), Audit cultures. Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy (pp. 57–89). London: Routledge.
48. Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2004). Whose accountability? Governmentality and the auditing of universities. Parallax,10, 100–116.
49. Talib, A. (2001). The continuing behavioural modification of academics since the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise. Higher Education Review,33, 30–46.
50. Thomas, H. G. (2001). Funding mechanism or quality assessment: Responses to the Research Assessment Exercise in English institutions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,23, 171–79.
51. Times Higher Education. (2008). RAE 2008: The results. timeshighereducation.co.uk. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/404786.article. Accessed 30 May 2013.
52. Warde, A. (1996). The effects of the1992 RAE. Network: Newsletter of the British Sociological Association,64, 1–2.
53. Webb, T. (2005). The anatomy of accountability. Journal of Education Policy,20, 189–208.
54. Whitty, G., Donoghue, M., Christie, D., Kirk, G., Menter, I., McNamara, O., Moss, G., Oancea, A., Rogers, C. and Thomson, P. (2012) Prospects for Education Research in Education Departments in HEIs in the UK. London: BERA and UCET. Online at http://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/FINAL-REPORT-FINAL-27-March-2012.pdf. Accessed 19 Sep. 2014.