Academic staff frustrated with research assessment exercise
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
Academic staff are deeply dissatisfied with the research assessment exercise, the mechanism that is used to allocate funding in higher education. This is the finding of a survey of clinical academic and research staff in the United Kingdom.
Although a minority (21%) of the 756 academics who returned the BMA's questionnaire said that the assessment exercise had had a positive impact on their career, twice as many (40%) said that it had affected them in a negative way. Two fifths (39%) said that it had not influenced their career.
One respondent wrote, "As is the only `quality' measure linked to funding, then career progression depends entirely on research output, rather than a balanced portfolio of research, teaching, and scholarship and clinical activity."
Another commented, " has severely damaged clinical academic medicine in favour of basic laboratory science. Uniquely in Europe we are regarded as `second class citizens,' despite making major contributions to improving health care. Many of those left in clinical academic posts no longer practise hands on medicine and the bridge between lab and patient has become longer and longer."
The sixth assessment exercise is due to happen in 2007 and 2008. In the past, staff were judged on four papers they had published in high impact journals since the last exercise, the number of PhD students, and research grant spending. The last exercise was in 2001.
Although a fifth of respondents to the survey said they would like to see the number of publications submitted to the assessment increased to five, a quarter were happy for the number to remain at four. More than quarter wanted to see 10 or more publications assessed.
Anita Holdcroft, deputy chairwoman of the BMA's medical academic staff committee, said that the current restriction to four papers did not represent many people's strengths: "If you have done a lot of work the exercise does not reflect this. Similarly, if you work in a specialist area you may not be able to publish in a high impact journal and your work will not be evaluated," she said.
More than three quarters of respondents agreed that more research quality indicators should be introduced into the exercise. The aspect that they considered most important was whether a publication led to changes in practice in the NHS. Respondents also wanted editorials and participation in trial steering and data monitoring committees to be considered when evaluating an academic's research capacity. In the past these criteria have been omitted by panels, said Dr Holdcroft.
She added, "There is no one from the NHS to say, for example, that a certain paper had a real impact on how patients are treated. They need someone there who is researching on that area to know its value. Some papers take 20 years to have their impact in medicine. Also patients or NHS representatives do not have a say on what they consider as the best research in this country. That in this day and age is surprising."
The BMA has fed the results of the survey into its response to a consultation on new draft criteria to assess staff which ended in September. The outcome of the consultation is due to be published by the research assessment exercise at the end of January 2006.(Zosia Kmietowicz)
Although a minority (21%) of the 756 academics who returned the BMA's questionnaire said that the assessment exercise had had a positive impact on their career, twice as many (40%) said that it had affected them in a negative way. Two fifths (39%) said that it had not influenced their career.
One respondent wrote, "As is the only `quality' measure linked to funding, then career progression depends entirely on research output, rather than a balanced portfolio of research, teaching, and scholarship and clinical activity."
Another commented, " has severely damaged clinical academic medicine in favour of basic laboratory science. Uniquely in Europe we are regarded as `second class citizens,' despite making major contributions to improving health care. Many of those left in clinical academic posts no longer practise hands on medicine and the bridge between lab and patient has become longer and longer."
The sixth assessment exercise is due to happen in 2007 and 2008. In the past, staff were judged on four papers they had published in high impact journals since the last exercise, the number of PhD students, and research grant spending. The last exercise was in 2001.
Although a fifth of respondents to the survey said they would like to see the number of publications submitted to the assessment increased to five, a quarter were happy for the number to remain at four. More than quarter wanted to see 10 or more publications assessed.
Anita Holdcroft, deputy chairwoman of the BMA's medical academic staff committee, said that the current restriction to four papers did not represent many people's strengths: "If you have done a lot of work the exercise does not reflect this. Similarly, if you work in a specialist area you may not be able to publish in a high impact journal and your work will not be evaluated," she said.
More than three quarters of respondents agreed that more research quality indicators should be introduced into the exercise. The aspect that they considered most important was whether a publication led to changes in practice in the NHS. Respondents also wanted editorials and participation in trial steering and data monitoring committees to be considered when evaluating an academic's research capacity. In the past these criteria have been omitted by panels, said Dr Holdcroft.
She added, "There is no one from the NHS to say, for example, that a certain paper had a real impact on how patients are treated. They need someone there who is researching on that area to know its value. Some papers take 20 years to have their impact in medicine. Also patients or NHS representatives do not have a say on what they consider as the best research in this country. That in this day and age is surprising."
The BMA has fed the results of the survey into its response to a consultation on new draft criteria to assess staff which ended in September. The outcome of the consultation is due to be published by the research assessment exercise at the end of January 2006.(Zosia Kmietowicz)