Every four or five years since 1986 the quality of research in university departments in the UK has been put under the microscope in the research assessment exercise (RAE). In the first exercise, departments were awarded one of five grades: a grade 5 meant that research in the department was outstanding, 4 meant it was above average, 3 was average and so on. In that first exercise 15 physics departments received grades 4 or 5, while almost half - some 24 out of 55 - were rated as below average.
Some 15 years and four RAEs later, departments are no longer judged against some statistical average but in terms of the quality of their research as measured against national and international standards: a grade 5, for instance, now means “quality that equates to attainable levels of international excellence in up to half of the research activity submitted and to attainable levels of national excellence in virtually all of the remainder”. Moreover, a 5* grade has been introduced for the very best departments.
Some 49 physics departments entered the 2001 RAE (see news story). The improvement on 1996 has been dramatic: of the 1668 physicists entered for the exercise, 78% work in departments rated 5 or 5*, compared with 54% in 1996, when 10% fewer physics staff had been entered. Moreover, five departments walked away with one of the prestigious 5* grades. A common feature of Imperial College, Lancaster and Southampton – the three departments that have joined Cambridge and Oxford in the 5* elite – has been their decision to focus on their strengths and to invest in new growth areas, often guided by external advisory committees. They have also joined their ancient rivals in acquiring a taste for champagne. While Imperial, with 100 staff entered in the exercise, is a large department like Cambridge and Oxford – Lancaster and Southampton, with 20 and 30 research-active staff, respectively, show what can be achieved in much smaller departments.
So what do the ratings mean in reality, besides self-esteem and a feel-good factor? Good ratings should help departments to attract additional research grants and better staff and students. Indeed, the grades plug directly into the algorithms used by the UK’s regional funding councils to allocate their budgets for research. However, the overall improvement in ratings, combined with the limited amount of funds, means that in England there will actually be a reduction in funds for departments below the 5* level – which is sure to rankle departments that have worked very hard to gain or retain grade 5 status.
The Labour government has a good record in supporting research, but given the large sums that universities are already demanding to meet the government’s aim that, by the end of the decade, 50% of young people should have the opportunity to benefit from higher education by the time they are 30, the chances of significant additional funds for research look slim. What is more likely to happen is that universities will have to compete for funds in a raft of special one-off schemes, with the stronger getting even stronger.
The picture that emerges from the RAE is probably rosier than that painted by the recent report on physics and astronomy in the UK prepared by an international panel of researchers (see Physics World June 2000 p5, print version only). That report concluded: “At its best, research in physics and astronomy in the UK is at the very highest level world-wide. Beneath the peaks of scientific excellence, however, UK physics research quality noticeably drops.”
One of the great missed opportunities of the RAE is that the output is just a list of grades without any comment or analysis. Together the RAE and the international panel’s report confirm the overall strength of physics and astronomy research in the UK – but given the ongoing pressure on university funding, those working beneath the peaks of scientific excellence may soon find themselves endangered species.
