IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v30y2003i1p47-54.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the assessment: An analysis of the UK Research Assessment Exercise, 2001, and its outcomes, with special reference to research in education

Author

Listed:
  • Ian McNay

Abstract

The primary purpose of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in the UK is to produce ratings of research quality. This study found that there were some issues of lack of clarity and consistency in the assignment of points for research quality among the various disciplines. There were differences in levels of sampling and in how the final grade was constructed. Education is considered in depth to exemplify the impact of the exercise and the issues facing one middle-ranked department in developing future research strategy. A strong case can be made for abandoning the RAE in favour of a strategy related more closely to the approach to teaching now commended by the White Paper for knowledge transfer universities. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Ian McNay, 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, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 47-54, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:30:y:2003:i:1:p:47-54
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154303781780704
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Rosanne Cecil & Kathryn Thompson & Kader Parahoo, 2006. "The research assessment exercise in nursing: learning from the past, looking to the future," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 395-402, April.

    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:oup:scippl:v:30:y:2003:i:1:p:47-54. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.