APPENDIX 12
Memorandum submitted by the University
of the West of England, Bristol
SUMMARY:
This submission provides evidence of a real
increase in research quality and new data on return on investment
made by the Government as a result of previous exercises. In determining
how scarce resources should be allocated we argue for a new approach
in the long term that is informed by gains made against Government
funds invested.
In the short term, while recognising the importance
of rewarding the higher grades, we believe that all units rated
3b and above should ideally be funded. Given limited resources
to fund the 3b to 4 ratings however, we argue that the Higher
Education Funding Council for England should take account of return
on investment as measured between the 1996 and 2001 exercises.
Units in this range should be differentially rewarded depending
on whether they have improved or not as indicated by the outcome
of the 2001 exercise.
RATIONALE
While various factors have contributed to the
overall increase in ratings following the 2001 RAE, we believe
the chief driver has been a genuine improvement in the research
performance of institutions. While some institutions appear to
have submitted fewer staff in order to enhance ratings, there
has been a marked increase overall in the number of staff in units
achieving the higher grades—the number of staff in units
rated 5/5* rose from 14,786 to 26,235, an increase of over 77
per cent. This dramatic increase demonstrates that overall quality
has improved.
The current funding mechanism rewards research
excellence through the differential funding of higher graded units
of assessment on a scale of 1, 1.5, 2.25, 3.375, 4.05 (for grades
3b to 5*). This is done on the basis of an assessment of quantitative
and qualitative research outputs over the assessment period. No
account is taken of input, and in particular of Funding Council
investment over that period, so no 'value for money' assessment
is made of the improvement and expansion in research. We feel
it is vital to reward both research excellence and value for money
from public investment.
One way of measuring the impact of public investment
is to consider the improvement in ratings, and increases in volume,
in proportion to HEFCE funding over the assessment period. By
measuring performance in terms of research "power" (a
simple measure which multiplies the number of staff by the quality
rating in each unit of assessment), it can be shown that the sector
as a whole has shown an improvement in performance of some 18
per cent since 1996. Dividing this measure by the amount of QR
(or in the case of the ex-polytechnics, by the sum of QR and CollR)
gives some idea of the relative return on investment. The overall
return on investment for all institutions is 12.42 research power
"units" per £ million QR/CollR. Interestingly however,
on this measure there is a marked discrepancy between return on
investment from 'old' universities (10.7) and the ex-polytechnics[2]
(25.5).
Per unit funding therefore, the ex-polytechnics
show two and half times greater improvement in performance than
the 'old' universities[3]
(see tables attached—further information on these calculations
is available on request).
The RAE rating of 3a is awarded to units where
between two thirds and all of the research is considered to be
at attainable levels of national excellence. The rating of 3b
relates to units where between half and two thirds is considered
to be at attainable levels of national excellence. While we would
support the continued principle of rewarding excellence through
differential funding of the higher grades, we believe it also
important to fund grades 3b to 4 in order to encourage further
improvement in standards. If there is insufficient resource to
fund all units rated 3b, 3a and 4, we suggest using the return
on investment principle to choose which units in the range 3b
to 4 should receive most funding.
For example, given limited resources, differential
funding could be allocated to areas of identifiable improvement
in units rated grade 3b and above in preference to areas where
public investment has been made but where no such improvement
has been achieved. Universities that have used QR effectively
to improve their research performance in a unit would thus be
rewarded.
On this basis, recognising the inability of
the HEFCE to fund the improvement evident from the 2001 RAE through
the current formula (and in order not to over-complicate the formula),
we would urge that priority be given to the funding of units rated
in the range 3b to 4 that have shown improvement in grade since
the last RAE.
In the longer term we believe that further work
should be carried out on return on investment before any decision
is taken about changing the nature of the Research Assessment
Exercise and the ways in which the Government can influence further
growth in research quality.
Linda Skinner, Richard Bond and Ian Warren
Centre for Research, Innovation and Industry, University
of the West of England, Bristol
15 January 2002
2 These two groups of institutions have been separated
because the numbers of institutions participating has been relatively
stable over the two assessments. In others categories eg Colleges
of Higher Education and specialist institutions it is more difficult
to measure differences because of the changing pattern of entries.
Data relates only to institutions funded by HEFCE. Back
3
In part this may be due to the inability to increase grades for
those rated 5* at 1996 but this does not fully explain the differential
return on investment. Back
| 
