Peer Review, the Research Assessment Exercise and the Demise of Non-Mainstream Economics

By Lee, Frederic S.; Harley, Sandra | Capital & Class, Autumn 1998 | Go to article overview

Peer Review, the Research Assessment Exercise and the Demise of Non-Mainstream Economics


Lee, Frederic S., Harley, Sandra, Capital & Class


1. Introduction

Prior to 1986, the year of the first Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), funding for research in British universities was built into funds per student on the assumption that all academics were engaged in research and scholarship as part of their role as academics. Additional funds for specific projects were available upon successful application from the Research Councils according to the principle of dual funding. However, beginning in the 1970s, the University Grants Committee (UGC) found that the government grant for the funding of teaching and research in British universities was declining in real terms. Moreover, in the early 1980s the universities fell victim to heavy cuts in public expenditure and it became apparent to many administrators in the field that excellence in research could not be maintained without applying some principle of selectivity in funding. Somewhat reluctantly, therefore, the UGC agreed to a research selectivity exercise whereby research funds were distributed to different departments according to the UGC's assessment of its degree of excellence.

The first exercise was an ad hoc affair with the UGC hurriedly appointing its assessors and only a small proportion of research monies dependent on their ratings.l The second exercise was carried out by the UGC in 1989 with a larger proportion of research funding dependent on the ratings of duly constituted subject panels to whom departments were to submit much refined applications; and in 1992, its successor, the Universities Funding Council (UFC), carried out a third exercise. In 1992, over 90 per cent of the UFC's research funds was distributed by its successors, the Higher Education Funding Councils (HEFCs) for England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, according to the ratings of its subject panels and the pre-1992 universities had to compete for that money with the ex-polytechnics or the new universities. As for the 1996 RAE, British universities prepared their submissions in an even tighter financial climate brought about by an average of 5 per cent reduction in real terms across the sector for 1996/97 (Universities Funding Council, 1989; Phillimore, 1989; and Higher Education Funding Council for England, 1993).

The first exercise seemed to have little impact on economists and their research. However, by the time of the 1989 RAE, the socalled `Diamond List' of core mainstream economic journals had been drawn up and there was a strong belief amongst economists that this list was used by the assessors to inform their judgement of the quality of research in economics departments in British universities. Certainly attempts were made to extend this list for use in the 1992 RAE, though this modified list remained, like its predecessor, `unofficial,' (see Table 5, page 48). The existence of these lists, whether official or not, has produced considerable discontent amongst British economists, for reasons not at all unrelated to the research rating received by their departments. (Diamond, 1989; Minutes of Conference of Heads of University Departments of Economics, 4/11/89, 215/93, and 21/5/94; and Harley and Lee, 1997)

At the 1994 Royal Economic Society Annual Conference a special session was held at which the chairman of the economics panel for the 1992 RAE, Professor Anthony Atkinson, gave his view of what the panel did and also received questions from the floor. One question asked was how did the panel regard economic research which fell outside the domain of mainstream economics. The answer was, in part, that the assessors did not discriminate against non-mainstream research and that the research assessment exercise should not be used by economic departments to discriminate against non-mainstream research. Professor Atkinson went on to add that he did not believe British economists would actively discriminate against non-mainstream economists and their research. However, at the same conference a flyer appeared which announced that The University of Manchester was in the market for nine economists who would raise the School of Economic Studies research profile in mainstream economics (see The Guardian 29/3/94).

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Peer Review, the Research Assessment Exercise and the Demise of Non-Mainstream Economics
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.