IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v158y1995i2p241-261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Statistical Analysis of the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise

Author

Listed:
  • Jim Taylor

Abstract

This paper reports the main results of a statistical analysis of the 1992 research assessment exercise (RAE), the purpose of which was to assess the quality of research in each subject area in all institutions of higher education in the UK. The analysis is undertaken for all 72 subject categories defined in the RAE. It provides an overview of the research activity during 1988–92 and examines the statistical relationship between the outcome of the RAE and a range of quantitative indicators based on various research outputs and inputs at institutional and subject level. A high proportion of the variation in research ratings between institutions is accounted for by only a handful of explanatory variables. Departmental size is shown to be a major explanatory variable. The statistical analysis of the RAE therefore indicates that quantitative measures of research outputs and inputs provide a useful guide to the quality of research, as determined by the process of peer review.

Suggested Citation

  • Jim Taylor, 1995. "A Statistical Analysis of the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 158(2), pages 241-261, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:158:y:1995:i:2:p:241-261
    DOI: 10.2307/2983291
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2307/2983291
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2307/2983291?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gianni De Fraja & Giovanni Facchini & John Gathergood, 2016. "How Much Is That Star in the Window? Professorial Salaries and Research Performance in UK Universities," Discussion Papers 2016-13, University of Nottingham, GEP.
    2. repec:lan:wpaper:1047 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. J Taylor, 2009. "The Assessment of Research Quality: Peer Review or Metrics?," Working Papers 602544, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    4. Doyle, J. R. & Arthurs, A. J. & Green, R. H. & McAulay, L. & Pitt, M. R. & Bottomley, P. A. & Evans, W., 1996. "The judge, the model of the judge, and the model of the judged as judge: Analyses of the UK 1992 research assessment exercise data for business and management studies," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 13-28, February.
    5. Cappelletti-Montano, Beniamino & Columbu, Silvia & Montaldo, Stefano & Musio, Monica, 2022. "Interpreting the outcomes of research assessments: A geometrical approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    6. repec:lan:wpaper:984 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Tanzila Ahmed & Ben Johnson & Charles Oppenheim & Catherine Peck, 2004. "Highly cited old papers and the reasons why they continue to be cited. Part II., The 1953 Watson and Crick article on the structure of DNA," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(2), pages 147-156, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:158:y:1995:i:2:p:241-261. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.