Research assessment and the hollowing out of the economics discipline in UK universities

This paper explores the link between the results of the UK’s Research Evaluation Exercises (REEs) and university decisions on which Units of Assessment (UOA) to submit to in future REEs. How the raw data from REEs can be converted into two novel measurements of research performance—an internal and an external measurement—is explained. Data on two UOAs, Business and Management Studies (BMS) and Economics and Econometrics (E&E), from five consecutive REEs undertaken in the United Kingdom (UK) between 1992 and 2014, was then used to assess whether and how the results of one REE were related to UOA submissions in the next. The findings reveal that both the internal and external assessments of performance were associated with changes in the probability of resubmission to the same UOA in the next REE, with the external comparisons being particularly important. It also appears that while one instance of poor performance might be tolerated by a university, repeated poor performance was associated with a heightened risk of withdrawal from both the BMS and E&E UOAs in the next REE. In addition, holding research performance constant, universities were significantly more likely to withdraw from the E&E UOA than the BMS UOA. New (post-1992) universities were also more likely to continue to submit to a UOA in the next REE than pre-1992 institutions. There is also some evidence that the quality of submissions to the BMS UOA is catching up with that of submissions to the E&E UOA. The somewhat worrying implications of these findings for the health of the Economics discipline in UK universities are assessed.