|
The Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop announced on 14 November 2006 that the Commonwealth government has decided to press ahead with the Research Quality Framework exercise. The RQF will take place in accordance with the model developed by the RQF Development Advisory Group and will involve the measurement of both quality and impact.
The press release notes “Preparatory work and trialling will continue in 2007, with data collection in 2008 and funding implementation in 2009.”
Ministerial Press Release Australian Government endorses Research Quality Framework
The RQF Development Advisory Group’s Recommended RQF.
Previous government discussion papers.
To understand why this may be a problem particularly for heterodox economists, the British experience is enlightening. There it is called the QAA and the QAA Subject benchmark statements Economics Draft for consultation August 2006.
Fred Lee has contributed the following papers (pdfs):
There is also an interesting article in the Post-Autistic Economics Review
Issue no. 37, 28 April 2006:
Why Research Assessment Exercises Are a Bad Thing: Donald Gillies
Alan Freeman has drafted the UK Association of Heterodox Economists Response:
Alan Freeman
Association for Heterodox Economics
Dear all
Please find attached a draft of the AHE's response to the QAA benchmarking statement consultation, which is also attached along with the QAA's proforma response form. This is mainly relevant to UK-based members but others may be interested and are welcome to comment.
The AHE committee (and if I recall, the AHE conference) decided to respond to this statement and I foolishly volunteered to coordinate responses. The result has been a rather short timescale and so I am only now able to send my draft to you for comment. However I have tried to take into account all responses that I received.
The statement has to be in by October 31st. I will finalise the response endeavouring to incorporate all comments and suggested amendments which I receive by the morning of Monday October 31st.
The statement has a somewhat Lutheran tone. I haven't yet had time to tone it down, but I am working on it. You may feel it falls short of constructive engagement but I felt at this first shot the most important thing was to make clear the totality of, and reason for, the many objections we have to the direction in which QAA benchmarking (and the RAE) is taking the subject. If anyone contacts me to say that they would rather not be associated with it, I will delete the word 'consensus' from the submission.
I am sure this submission will not be our last word. A list for discussion has been set up and you will shortly be contacted - if you feel the need for public discussion (which would be welcome) please feel free to contribute, but I hope you will respect the privacy of other members who may not wish to take part, by waiting until this list goes public.
Regards
Alan
GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY
Submission from the Association of Heterodox economists to the consultation on the QAA benchmark statement on economics.
|
