Let's continue with research quality assessment with outcomes influencing reputation but not funding, writes Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research) Professor Lesley Johnson and Senior Manager - Research Policy Tony Sheil.

Universities have already expended enormous resources and effort in preparation for the Research Quality Framework 2008 and many would prefer to see the current cycle through to its logical conclusion even though it is proving to be a cumbersome exercise. The outcomes would enable the government and university sector to learn from the inevitable mistakes in order to inform better practice for future cycles but without having to deal with potentially devastating funding outcomes on the run. Reputation is a strong enough motivator and besides there are a range of intrinsic benefits flowing from the exercise if we treat it primarily as a trial.

Academic staff members and university administration have recalibrated work practices, policies and strategic thinking to accommodate the drive to quality. All have put a great deal of time and energy into doing this work over the last 9 to 12 months. To lose this momentum would be disappointing, especially given that the impact of the current exercise as a driver of positive behaviour in research culture is already becoming apparent to many.

There is however a lack of confidence that the outcomes of what is necessarily going to be this time round an experimental quality assessment exercise should be used as a basis for the allocation of research block funding in the first round - whether the funding formula is known in advance or not. The process has been too hurried in the last twelve months despite the best efforts of DEST staff for the sector to have confidence in the results, particularly when it is likely to determine university research funding for possibly up to six years.

The Federal Opposition has been reluctant to cite any apparent benefits of the current plans for the RQF and has undertaken to introduce a research quality assurance system which will be more streamlined and transparent, relying more on the use of metrics and casting impact aside. While a metrics-driven research assessment exercise has instant appeal for those who would prefer the most efficient mechanism for distributing research block funding, a number of Deputy Vice Chancellors Research will testify to the unreliability of metrics to make well-informed and fine grained decisions. Nothing quite matches peer review.

In moving forward we need to look beyond our infatuation with the British RAE and examine similar exercises in other countries that have provided strong evidence to support increased funding for university research without the outcomes being directly linked to funding.

Irrespective of the outcome of the forthcoming federal election there is a strong case to support the continuation of a research quality assessment exercise in 2008, though without funding attached to outcomes of the first round.

This is an edited extract of an opinion piece that first appeared in The Australian Higher Education Supplement on Wednesday October 17, 2007