Editor—Medical academic staff have protested that the Higher Education Funding Councils’ research assessment exercise is unjust, emphasises research at the expense of teaching, and is damaging medical schools.1,2 The effects on particular disciplines, however, are not apparent in publications from the councils, which relate to units of assessment and institutions rather than individual departments.
To assess the effects of 1996’s research assessment exercise on university departments of general practice we surveyed all 27 heads of department in the United Kingdom at the end of 1997, asking about funding changes after the exercise and about teaching workload; we also suggested changes for the next exercise. Altogether 26 departments responded (24 undergraduate and two postgraduate only). Twenty heads reported that funding had been reviewed in the light of the exercise, and five that a review was planned. Only three declared increased funding (including new posts funded by the councils in two departments); 10 reported reductions, which had led to redundancies in one department, disestablished or frozen posts in eight, and the use of alternative funds to keep staff in seven. The table shows the significant positive relation found between ratings and reported changes in funding.
Seventeen undergraduate departments were teaching in five years of the curriculum and seven in three years, and 18 heads expected their teaching load to increase. We found no relation, however, between research assessment exercise ratings and these measures, which suggests that increased teaching has not impaired research activity.
In response to suggested changes to the exercise, 20 heads agreed that health service research should be afforded greater status, 19 that the judging panel should include a social scientist, 11 that primary care should be a separate unit of assessment, and 10 that the total volume of output should count. Only seven agreed that journal impact factors should be used to judge papers, which tends to support the suggestion that panels should assign journal ratings in consultation with academics.2
Our findings suggest that the exercise’s principle of selectively rewarding more highly rated departments is being followed in medical schools. This has proved costly to general practice (a fledgling academic discipline), at least in the short term, although we emphasise that the research assessment exercise in 1996 was conducted in the context of a downward trend in funding of research by the Higher Education Funding Councils.3 In future more funding may be channelled through the NHS research and development programme4 and the Medical Research Council.5 The prospects for general practice research are therefore bright despite the 1996 research assessment exercise.
Table.
Relation between ratings received by units of assessment of academic departments of general practice and subsequent changes in departmental funding
| Rating received | Subsequent changes in departmental funding
|
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Decrease | No change | Increase | |
| 2, 3b | 6 | 5 | 0 |
| 3a, 4 | 4 | 4 | 1 |
| 5, 5* | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Kendall’s τ b=0.389, P=0.038.
References
- 1.Beecham L. Medical academic staffs conference. BMJ. 1998;316:1834–1835. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Williams G. Misleading, unscientific, and unjust: the United Kingdom’s research assessment exercise. BMJ. 1998;316:1079–1082. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7137.1079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.HEFCs set to lose £100m to research councils. Res Fortnight. 1997. p. 3. :1. [Google Scholar]
- 4.NHS Executive. R&D in primary care. National working group report. London: Department of Health; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Medical Research Council. Primary health care. MRC topic review. London: MRC; 1997. [Google Scholar]