The Impact of Research Assessment Exercises on UK Accounting and Finance Faculty

British Accounting Review (2001) 33, 333–355 doi:10.1006/bare.2001.0164, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

THE IMPACT OF RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISES ON UK ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE FACULTY TONY BRINN, MICHAEL JOHN JONES AND MAURICE PENDLEBURY Cardiff Business School Published research outputs have for a long time been used to assess the performance of UK accounting and finance faculty. This process has been institutionalised and formalised through the introduction of Research Assessment Exercises (RAEs). RAEs have now become a central and recurring feature of university life. This research evaluates the perceptions of UK accounting faculty of the RAE. We surveyed 713 research active academics in November 1997 drawn from old and new universities, and from senior and non-senior faculty. The 182 academics who responded perceived that the quality of their individual and their department’s research had been increased. However, teaching and administration were believed to have been negatively affected. Overall, twice as many academics believed the RAE had a negative rather than a positive impact upon their jobs. The results across the university divide (old vs. new universities) were fairly homogeneous. However, the responses of senior and non-senior staff were significantly different. Non-senior respondents believed the RAE had a significantly greater negative impact on their teaching, administration, promotion prospects and job mobility than senior respondents. Overall, respondents perceived the RAE ratings to be fair. Publication in top UK research journals was perceived to be the greatest indicator of research quality. The findings have important implications, particularly for the recruitment and retention of non-senior accounting and finance faculty.  2001 Academic Press

INTRODUCTION Published research output has for a long time been a key indicator of the performance of UK accounting and finance faculty. UK academics, therefore, have naturally taken a keen interest in both the quality and quantity of The authors would like to acknowledge their grateful thanks to the 182 UK accounting academics who responded to their questionnaire. In addition, they thank Roy Chandler, John Richard Edwards and Ken Peasnell for their helpful comments. This paper has benefited from comments at the 1999 British Accounting Association Annual Conference. Finally, they would like to thank the two anonymous referees. Received January 2000; revised August 2000; accepted June 2001 0890–8389/01/030333+23 $35.00/0

 2001 Academic Press

334

T. BRINN ET AL.

these research outputs (see, for example, Lyall, 1978; Gray et al. 1987; Gee & Gray, 1989; Hutchinson, 1989; and Gray & Helliar, 1994). Although research was already becoming increasingly important over time (Peasnell & Williams, 1986), the introduction of a systematic institutional appraisal system, namely the Research Assessment Exercises (RAEs) has accelerated the process. In essence, panels of experienced academics sit in judgement on different academic disciplines. For accounting and finance, individual universities are assessed either under an Accounting Panel or under a Business and Management Studies (BMS) Panel and these panels concern themselves mainly with publications.1 The RAE is a distinctly British innovation!2 The 1996 RAE was the fourth of a series which began with the University Grants Committee in 1985-86 (see Humphrey et al. 1995 for a more detailed analysis). Each successive RAE (1989, 1992 and 1996) was more extensive and sophisticated. However, the RAE panel members still exercise considerable judgement. In particular, the RAEs have become the key mechanism by which universities are graded and funded for research (see Mace, 1993, Whittington, 1993 and Taylor, 1994). The RAE results also have an enormous reputational impact and the pressure to maintain or improve performance in many institutions is a dominant feature (often the dominating feature) of educational planning. At the institutional level, a university’s reputation and funding is now linked to this periodic research assessment. Indeed, prima facie the RAEs appear to have initiated a cultural shift in the UK university sector. Competition between universities is now overt rather than covert with clearly designated institutional and individual winners and losers. This process is very public with league tables being produced. In essence, this follows the trend in the public sector of naming and shaming (see, for example, school league tables or hospital rankings). At the departmental level, the RAE may have direct job-related benefits, with good RAE ratings leading to increased research funding, improved staff-student ratios and decreased teaching. However, this is crucially dependent on a close relationship existing between research funding earned and allocations to those departments or units of assessment which earned it. A survey by Angluin & Scapens (2000), which examined UK accounting and finance academics’ perceptions and understanding of the overall resource allocation systems of universities, rather than the specific impact of the RAEs, indicates that this may not always be the case. They found wide variations in the transparency of the resource allocation systems used by universities and high levels of perceived unfairness in the systems. At a personal level, individual academics skilled in research may find their job mobility and/or promotion prospects enhanced.3 The RAEs may also change job priorities. The public and visible nature of the RAE exercise may encourage relatively more time and effort to be devoted to research rather than, say, to teaching or administration. Indeed, the periodic, comprehensive and hierarchical nature of the process leads the RAEs to be arguably more influential at the institutional level than the corresponding

IMPACT OF RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISES

335

Funding Council’s Teaching Quality Assessments (TQAs). For unlike the TQAs, the RAE exercises may bring direct monetary rewards for successful institutions. This stems from their fundamentally different orientation The RAEs are designed to channel limited funds to areas of research excellence. By contrast, the TQAs are a mechanism which seeks to raise the quality of teaching. Funding does not directly follow teaching excellence, although it may make it easier to recruit students, particularly overseas students. Institutions attempt to balance the needs of teaching and research. However, success in the RAE is likely to bring more immediate and greater financial benefits than success in TQAs. The RAEs, therefore, represent a key dimension in the operation of the modern university. Indeed, with a fifth RAE being undertaken in 2001, the management and structure of higher education in the UK is once more under scrutiny. Surprisingly, however, as far as we know, there have been relatively few empirical studies of UK academic accountants or other related disciplines4 which have attempted to gauge the perceived impact upon individuals or institutions. This paper seeks to contribute to this important topic by reporting the results of a systematic empirical survey of UK accounting and finance faculty. Specifically, we assess perceptions of UK accounting faculty on the RAEs’ impact upon teaching, administration and research. In addition, we report on the perceived fairness of the RAE gradings and the relative importance attached by academics to different forms of publication outputs and research inputs. This research thus has implications for the process of the RAE for the members of the Accounting and BMS RAE panels and for all those being evaluated. However, more generally, the findings from accounting are likely to have wider implications for all UK faculty, particularly those in Business Schools. The remainder of the paper consists of four sections, followed by a conclusion. In the literature review, we summarize the accounting-based RAE research including both descriptive and critical studies. Our methods are then presented. Our results are then presented in the next two sections. A discussion section then contains some speculations about the implications of our findings on accounting and finance research. We have, wherever appropriate, actually quoted the individual comments of our respondents. LITERATURE REVIEW The literature on the impact of the RAEs on accounting and finance can be broadly divided into descriptive studies (Whittington, 1993, 1997) and critical studies (Puxty et al. 1994; Humphrey et al. 1995; Power 1997; Parker et al. 1998; Harley, 2000). Whittington (1993, 1997)) presents the views of an RAE insider on the 1992 and 1996 accounting RAE panels. He was a member of the RAE accounting panel in 1992 and the panel’s

336

T. BRINN ET AL.

chairman in 1996. The articles focus on the procedures and outputs of the panel. Whittington (1993:389) concludes that RAEs are ultimately subjective despite the fact that a key criterion was ‘publications in refereed journals’. Whittington (1993) also suggests an improvement in the quality of research from 1989–1992. In his second article, Whittington (1997:190) points out that it is inappropriate for him to ‘attempt to judge the process or the work of the [accounting] Panel’. The critical studies undertaken by outsiders do not share Whittington’s judgemental reticence. In a wide-ranging analysis of the current state of the UK’s higher educational system, Puxty et al. clearly identify the RAEs as being ‘potential or actual sources of increased pressure and stress’ (1994:137). The RAEs are viewed as ‘encouraging’ departments to be proactive in expanding the quality of their research production in contrast to an earlier era when the research undertaken was at the individual scholar’s discretion! Anecdotal evidence of direct pressures upon non-publishing staff is cited. A recognition and reward system is argued to reduce the degree of autonomy of individual universities, departments and academics, fuelling and legitimising managerialism, redefining professionalism and eroding institutions’, departments’ and individual academics’ collegial control over academic labour processes (p. 157). The academic labour market, in a nutshell, is being commodified. Willmott (1995:993) sums this up as ‘the commodification of academic labor and the managerial control of academic work results from politico-economic pressures to demonstrate that funds are being directed in ways that are ostensibly congruent with the commodifying logic’. Humphrey et al. (1995:158) focus more narrowly on the impact of the RAE, seeking ‘to stimulate critical reflections on the current role and form of research selectivity in British University Accounting’. These authors criticize research selectivity as ‘arbitrary and subjective’, and believe ‘research selectivity processes are increasingly undermining the value of establishing and working within a broad-based research community’ (1995, p. 158). Moreover, they identify potential institutional and individual dysfunctionalities: ‘the simple task now is to acquire ‘star players’ before the next assessment deadlines, with the more highly rated departments increasingly able to finance such activities where ‘research moneys follow research ratings.’ Individually, academic reputations depend increasingly on a continuing ability to ‘churn out’ publications (p. 159). In addition, they question, whether it is ‘implausible to see a future in academic accounting in which staff are actually discouraged from refereeing for research journals, seldom participate actively in research seminars or conferences; only undertake the supervision of Ph.D. students if a publishable paper looks likely; are tempted to referee unfavourably (i.e. reject) papers which they suspect are emerging from rival institutions; or seek to set-up their own journals so as to provide a guaranteed outlet for departmental publications?’ (p. 159). This is, of course, a predictable consequence of mainly concentrating on one measure of performance. Power (1997:100) notes that a ‘whole menu

IMPACT OF RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISES

337

of activities for which performance measures have not been devised have ceased to have official value’, for example, the editing of books, the organizing of conferences and the reviewing and facilitating of the publication efforts of others. Parker et al. (1998) investigate the perceptions of accounting and the management research of 20 UK and 20 Australian academics (for the UK equally partitioned between management/accounting and between new/old universities) in a telephone survey. Their interviewees (professors or heads of departments) perceived the RAE as a device which ‘pressured staff not only to lift their publication output, but to tailor it to fit the types of publications most valued in the governmental assessment system.’ (p. 383). In essence, this system favours research publications at the expense of books and professional articles. Dysfunctional consequences were also commonly encountered such as the adoption of short-term and conservative research strategies. Harley (2000) looks at the perceptions of 209 accounting academics in January 1997. Harley indicates that academic accountants are divided in their perceptions and reactions to the RAE. She argues (p. 549) that ‘the RAE appeals to traditional academic identities, re-enforcing existing divisions within the academic accounting community and dissipating resistance to its perceived negative effects’. Her conclusion is ‘that despite a significant degree of hostility to the RAE, UK accountants are themselves in large part responsible for enacting this particular managerial control strategy’ (p. 549). Harley’s questionnaire focused on perceptions of change. Data on perceived positive and negative effects were derived from open-ended questions, with no attempt at statistical analysis. Harley’s (2000) study, provides useful data which complements the findings reported in this particular paper. The seven studies outlined above provide valuable views by informed individuals of the potential implications and consequences of the RAEs. These papers analysed the RAE process pursued in the accounting and finance area. They highlight dysfunctional consequences such as the narrow definition of research quality and growing inequalities between new and old universities. They also critically appraised the RAE process. The only study, however, which systematically evaluated UK academics was Harley (2000). Harley investigates the effects of the RAE (such as quality and quantity of research) but only by using open-ended questions. Moreover, Harley (2000) does not investigate perceived fairness, the importance of publication outlets or the importance of research funding. This particular study, therefore, reinforces and develops Harley’s study. METHODS A questionnaire was developed to assess the impact of RAEs on accounting academics. It was piloted in the researchers’ department and then revised. A total of 713 academics were then sent questionnaires in November 1997. All

338

T. BRINN ET AL.

academics at UK institutions listed in the 1996 British Accounting Research Register with one or more publications in a refereed journal during the two years covered by the register (1994 and 1995) were selected. All senior staff (defined as professors, readers and senior/principal lecturers) were included on the grounds that their seniority would, for the most part, have resulted from their current or past research profile. Our sample frame (see Table 1) was therefore designed to include all UK accounting academics active in research. The sample was drawn both from ‘old’ and new universities. Relatively few of the academics from new universities included in our sample frame were non-senior. We, therefore randomly selected a further 72 new university, non-senior staff. We also selected 72 non-senior staff from ‘old’ universities who failed to meet the publication criterion. One hundred and eighty-two usable responses were received (25Ð5%) spread across all grades (36% professors; 4% readers; 8% principal lecturers; 22% senior lecturers; 25% lecturers; and 5% other).5 The responses were heavily weighted in favour of the old university faculty (72% ‘old’ university: 28% ‘new’ university). The majority’s main allegiance was to an accounting and finance section (68%) rather than to a business school (24%). We were also, in general, surveying fairly experienced individuals: 85% had served for over seven years (61% over ten years);6 88% rated themselves as, at least, moderately active researchers; and 86% rated themselves as, at least, moderately successful publishers. Finally, the majority were male (78%) and professionally qualified (68%), but only 39% possessed a PhD.7 RESULTS The first set of questions asked the survey participants to indicate their perceptions of the impact of the RAEs on research quality, research quantity, both their individual and their departmental research, teaching, administration, career development and quality of job.8 The aggregate responses of respondents on the impact of the RAE on themselves and on their respective departments were highly correlated.9 In general, given the TABLE 1 Sample frame

Old University New University Total

Met publication criteria

Not met publication criteria

Senior

Non-senior

Non-senior

251 167 418

123 28 151

72 72 144

Total

446 267 713

IMPACT OF RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISES

339

similarity between departmental and individual impacts, we focus on the departmental impact. We, therefore, record the individuals’ perceptions of the effects of the RAEs on their respective departments in Table 2 for both the overall sample and the analysis by seniority and institutional affiliation. Table 2 does, however, also include individual means for the overall sample. A late response bias test showed no significant differences at the 0Ð01 level, between the last 22 responses and the main sample using a Mann-Whitney test.10 We also sought opinions on the fairness of the RAE and the relative importance of publication outlets and sources of research funding. The results from the overall survey are presented first. However, this sample is made up of respondents exhibiting different levels of research activity and the perceptions of the RAE by more active researchers might be different from those of less active researchers. We therefore undertook further analysis. These results partitioned by seniority and institutional affiliation (i.e. ‘old’ and ‘new’ universities) are presented in the next section. Senior staff will typically have been successful at research. As a consequence, senior staff and non-senior staff (i.e. lecturers) may be expected to have different views. The research tradition is very different between the old and new universities, and we therefore expected our respondents’ views to reflect this. Impact of RAE Research Our respondents perceived that the RAEs had a positive impact on the quality and quantity of research at both the departmental and individual level. Of the respondents 74% perceived a positive impact on the quantity of departmental research, but only 7% a negative impact (overall mean 3Ð8). Similarly, 50% of the respondents perceived a positive impact on the quality of departmental research and only 17% a negative impact (overall mean 3Ð4). Despite the quite specific guidance that the RAE focuses on quality rather than quantity, many of our respondents believed that research quantity was still the chief beneficiary. ‘Emphasis is on output and quality of journal, not on quality of research’ (reader, old university) ‘Needs more emphasis on quality rather than quantity’ (senior lecturer, old university) ‘By sheer quantity the RAE has diminished the quality of research and reduced the quality of job satisfaction’ (lecturer, old university)

Nevertheless, there was also some strong support for the impact on quality: ‘I believe it is the best thing to affect universities in the UK in recent years. Although the RAE is by no means perfect it has helped to enhance the quality and position of scholarship and helped promote public accountability in the

340

TABLE 2 Individuals’ perceptions of the impact of RAE on departments and individuals and analysed by seniority and institutional affiliation Overall sample

Analysis by seniority

Individuals’ perceptions of impact on: Individuals Mean

Non-senior

‘Old’ University

‘New’ University

Departments Mean Neg. Pos. Mean Neg. Pos. Mean Neg. Pos. MW Mean Neg. Pos. Mean Neg. Pos. MW Imp. Imp. Imp. Imp. Imp. Imp. Sig Imp. Imp. Imp. Imp. Sig % % % % % % % % % %

3Ð5

3Ð8

7

74

3Ð9

4

79

3Ð6

13

66

ŁŁŁ

3Ð8

5

76

3Ð7

12

70

3Ð2

3Ð4

17

50

3Ð5

14

58

3Ð2

24

36

ŁŁŁ

3Ð3

22

46

3Ð6

6

59

2Ð6 2Ð5 3Ð2

2Ð5 2Ð5 3Ð2

51 53 26

9 8 43

2Ð6 2Ð5 3Ð4

42 49 21

12 10 50

2Ð3 2Ð4 3Ð0

66 63 34

4 4 31

ŁŁŁ

2Ð4 2Ð4 3Ð2

57 61 27

7 5 45

2Ð7 2Ð8 3Ð2

40 35 22

12 15 39

ŁŁ ŁŁ

3Ð3 3Ð0

3Ð2 3Ð1

22 30

37 38

3Ð3 3Ð3

22 24

46 45

3Ð0 2Ð8

23 39

25 26

ŁŁ ŁŁŁ

3Ð3 3Ð0

21 33

45 35

2Ð9 3Ð3

28 23

19 44

ŁŁ

2Ð7

2Ð7

50

24

2Ð9

44

31

2Ð5

58

13

ŁŁ

2Ð6

56

21

3Ð0

33

33

ŁŁŁ

ŁŁ

The respondents were asked to use a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 (great negative impact) through 2 (moderate negative impact), 3 (neutral impact), 4 (moderate positive impact) to 5 (great positive impact). For presentational purposes, scale points 1 and 2 have been combined as ‘negative impact’ and scale points 4 and 5 as ‘positive impact’ and the percentages for these combined scale points are reported in the columns headed ‘Neg. Imp.’ and ‘Pos. Imp.’ respectively. The asterisks in the columns headed ‘MW Sig’ indicate significant differences between senior (professors, readers, senior lecturers) and non-senior respondents and between respondents from ‘old’ universities and ‘new’ universities in the distribution of responses across the full 5 point Likert scale using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. The significance level is indicated as follows: ŁŁ significant at 0Ð05 level, ŁŁŁ significant at 0Ð01 level.

T. BRINN ET AL.

a) Quantity of research b) Quality of research c) Teaching d) Administration e) Promotion policies f) Staff mobility g) Career development policies h) Overall quality of job

Senior

Institutional affiliation

IMPACT OF RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISES

341

performers versus non performers among staff (in research terms)’ (lecturer, old university)11

There was also a general uneasiness that the RAEs encourage shorttermism with consequent implications for quality. ‘The biggest problem is that it is too short run. Hence quality suffers in order to make sure that volume target is hit.’ (professor, old university) ‘Encourages short-term perspective in research and publication.’ (professor, old university) ‘Forces one to focus on research projects with short time frames i.e. 2 years or less as opposed to 3-4 years.’ (senior lecturer, old university)

Teaching and administration Whereas the RAEs’ impact upon research was judged to be positive, the reverse was true for teaching and, in particular, administration. (Only 9% of respondents perceived the RAEs’ impact on teaching was positive and only 8% felt that the impact on administration was positive.) Harley (2000) also found some evidence of a negative impact upon teaching. The overall means clearly reflect this negative impact (2Ð5 for both teaching and administration). The adverse consequences for non-research activities were summed up by three respondents, thus: ‘Accounting departments, like most UK departments are becoming too obsessed by the single performance indicator of the RAE grade. It is producing a large number of dysfunctional consequences, e.g. in the way colleagues work with (or not) each other.’ (professor, old university) ‘It gives research a higher profile in my university but does not focus research on the needs of students and the business community.’ (professor, new university) ‘RAE has confirmed my suspicion that teaching and administration do not matter.’ (lecturer, old university)

Another individual commented upon the difficulty of juggling multiple priorities: ‘The RAE is making completion of my PhD difficult. I am increasingly taking a satisficing approach to teaching and administration’ (lecturer, old university)

Career development The career development aspects of the RAE’s were assessed via three questions on promotion, job mobility and career development. For all three questions, over a third of all respondents perceived a positive impact. At the departmental level, the means were 3Ð2 (for both promotion and staff mobility) and 3Ð1 (for career development). Interestingly, although 43% of respondents rated the RAEs’ impact on

342

T. BRINN ET AL.

their department’s promotion policies as positive, there was much more pessimism at the individual level concerning personal promotion prospects, with only 34% recording a positive impact. Quality of job Although the RAEs’ career developmental aspects were viewed positively, the overall perceptions of the RAEs’ impact on job quality were clearly negative. Twice as many respondents at both individual and departmental level perceived the RAEs as negative rather than positive. The overall means were 2Ð7 at both levels. Career development, therefore, although important, is not important enough to compensate for the deterioration in the quality of the job. Fairness of RAEs An important question, given the RAEs’ perceived overall negative impact upon job quality, is: are they perceived as fair? The answer seems broadly to be ‘yes’ (see Table 3).12 One professor (new university) perhaps captures the general mood: ‘Difficult to answer. I believe the process was conducted well and the gradings reflect the criteria used—it is questionable whether that gives ‘a fair impression etc’ as other criteria would give another impression.’

The process, itself, was therefore perceived to be conducted fairly given the criteria which were used. The ratings of the respondents’ own departments or institutions were perceived to be fair by over 60% of the respondents (mean 3Ð6 and 3Ð7, respectively). Interestingly, perceptions of fairness gradually diminish as a broader perspective is adopted. Other accounting and finance departments scored 3Ð5, while other institutions scored 3Ð4. Generally, the highest ratings are associated with greatest knowledge. TABLE 3 Fairness of RAEs ratings of accounting and finance research Overall sample Unfair

a) Your own accounting and finance department b) Your own institution c) Other accounting and finance departments d) Other institutions e) Overall

n

%

Neutral n %

35

21

30

26 34

16 20

24 35

17 23

Fair

Mean

n

%

18

104

61

3Ð6

35 37

21 22

105 94

63 58

3Ð7 3Ð5

54 44

36 29

72 73

47 48

3Ð4 3Ð4

343

IMPACT OF RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISES

Publication outlets Although our respondents ranked 15 publication outlets (see Table 4),13 only 5 were perceived as important for the RAE: top UK research journals (mean 4Ð8); top US research journals (mean 4Ð7); other research journals (mean 3Ð9); research-oriented books (mean 3Ð6); and research-oriented book chapters (mean 3Ð4). Broadly, the supremacy of the top research journals is unsurprising. However, it was unexpected that our respondents ranked top UK journals ahead (if marginally) of top US journals. Prior research by British academics has consistently ranked top US research journals well ahead of top UK research journals in terms of research quality (see, for example, Brinn et al. (1996)). Thus for RAE purposes, our respondents appear to be taking factors into account other than research quality. Statistically, however, this result was driven by five respondents who ranked top US journals of little importance.14 Our respondents heavily discounted the importance of all other research publications.15 A severe dichotomy exists between the five research-oriented outlets and the other ten outputs. Refereed conference proceedings score only 2Ð2. This may be because these are comparatively rare in the accounting discipline. Nor was dissemination by academics to non-research audiences TABLE 4 Importance of publication outlets in RAE exercise Overall sample Not important n % Top UK research journals Top US research journals Other research journals Research-oriented books Research-oriented book chapters Edited books Professional journals Refereed conference proceedings Short works Teaching-oriented books Other publications Teaching-oriented book chapters Popular journals Book reviews Non-refereed conference proceedings

–

Neutral n %

Important n %

Mean

5 11 30 39

– 3 6 17 23

2 3 17 31 35

1 2 10 18 20

170 164 144 113 100

99 95 84 65 57

4Ð8 4Ð7 3Ð9 3Ð6 3Ð4

92 139 121

61 81 69

39 20 26

23 12 15

26 12 27

16 7 16

2Ð3 2Ð2 2Ð2

123 142 91 146

73 81 82 85

37 22 18 18

22 13 15 10

9 10 4 8

5 6 3 5

2Ð0 1Ð7 1Ð7 1Ð6

154 149 164

91 90 95

11 11 8

6 7 4

6 4 1

3 2 1

1Ð5 1Ð5 1Ð3

344

T. BRINN ET AL.

TABLE 5 Importance of external research funding in RAE exercise

ESRC Professional accountancy bodies Other sources

Not important

Neutral

Important

Mean

n

%

n

%

n

%

24 47

14 28

13 23

7 13

136 103

79 59

4Ð0 3Ð4

52

30

39

23

80

47

3Ð1

(i.e. teaching books or professional journals) valued for the RAE exercise. The response on the importance of publication outlets in relation to the RAE supports the findings of Parker et al. (1998) that research journals enjoy the highest ranking. However, in this study, our respondents (unlike those of Parker et al.) rank edited books and professional journals above teaching-oriented books, but all of these are well behind the importance attached to ‘other research journals’. External funding Turning to research inputs, Table 5 indicates that all three external research funding sources are important, with the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) being the most important. When these input measures are compared against the output measures, ESRC funding, although important, lags behind the two key performance indicators (top UK and US research journals). Professional and other funding rank below the five research outputs. Changes in the RAE Respondents were asked to record any changes they would make to the RAE. We received 74 separate individual comments and feelings often ran very high. One respondent felt that the RAE is: ‘a wholly misguided initiative, philistine in its conception and completely misses the point of promoting scholastic enquiry’ (professor, old university)

At least 10 academics wrote that the process should be scrapped. The following quotation was not unusual: ‘Abolish it. Academics are academics because they like their jobs. They do not need chasing. This is particularly so in Accounting, Finance, Management where outside rewards are much higher. I do not see why the performance of my colleagues should affect my conditions of work. If a system of incentives and rewards should operate it should be at the individual level: individuals should be rated and their salary increased if they are seen to be performing well.’ (reader, old university).

IMPACT OF RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISES

345

Most respondents grudgingly accepted the RAE: ‘Given that we must have a RAE, it needs to be more transparent’ (professor, new university).

This feeling of lack of transparency was quite common. There were also many suggestions for improving the mechanics of the RAE. We list some of these below: ž ‘Publications should not attach to the author ONLY. People can publish if they are in a conducive environment/department. Half the credit should attach to the author and go with him/her/them to a new position; Half should attach to the department where the research was undertaken/journal article written.’ (professor, old university) ž ‘Remove limit on maximum submissions per individual.’ (senior lecturer, old university) ž ‘Some recognition for work-in-progress (e.g. definite forthcomings or conference papers).’ (job category not provided) ž ‘All joint authored papers, books etc. should be allocated proportionally . . . publications should only be allowed to count from date individual employed in specific institution, i.e. past publications count for previous institutions.’ (professor, old university) ž ‘6 yearly intervals instead of 4.’ (professor, old university) In essence, the comments, called for more flexibility in the RAE process in terms of type and number of publications considered, of methods used to assess the research of individuals and departments, and of the time periods assessed. ANALYSIS BY SENIORITY AND INSTITUTION Impact of RAE Senior and non-senior respondents Table 2 shows that senior and non-senior respondents differ significantly (at the 0Ð05 level or greater) in their views of the impact of the RAEs on seven out of the eight aspects covered. However, these differences were of emphasis rather than of overall opinion. Senior respondents perceived the impact of the RAEs on the quantity and quality of departmental research to be significantly stronger (at the 0Ð01 level). For research quantity, 79% of senior respondents perceived a positive impact compared to 66% of non senior respondents. For research quality, 58% of senior respondents perceived a positive impact compared to 36% of their non-senior counterparts. On teaching, the perceived negative impact was much stronger among non-senior staff. This may reflect a belief that to achieve promotion teaching must be sacrificed to research. Senior, (i.e. already promoted), staff may perceive teaching and research to be more in balance. One of the most

346

T. BRINN ET AL.

interesting results in the senior/non-senior partitioning reflects the career development aspects of the RAE. The distribution of responses reveals that senior staff perceive the RAEs to have a significantly more positive impact on promotion prospects, job mobility and long term career.16 Finally, the RAEs’ overall impact on job quality was perceived as significantly less negative by senior than non-senior staff. Even so, it is interesting to note that as many as 44% of our senior staff respondents perceived the impact of the RAEs on overall job quality to be negative. Old and new university responses At the departmental level only four out of eight old/new university differences were significant (at the 0Ð05 level or higher). Of the four partitioned groups new university respondents most strongly perceived (59%) that the RAE had a positive impact on research quality. For teaching and administration, significant perceptual differences exist. For example 61% of old university respondents perceived a negative impact on administration compared with only 35% from new universities. No significant differences existed between the old and new university respondents vis a` vis promotion or long-term career policies. However, under staff mobility, the old university respondents perceived a greater positive impact (45%) than non-senior respondents (19%). On overall job quality, 56% of old university respondents perceived the RAEs’ impact to be negative. This was significantly different from the responses from new universities, with only 33% of the respondents perceiving a negative impact. The more research active institutions thus perceive the negative aspects of the RAE on job quality most heavily. Fairness of RAEs Senior staff perceived the RAEs to be significantly (at 0Ð01 level) fairer than their non-senior counterparts. For example the percentages of senior respondents who felt that the rating of their own department, their own institution and other accounting and finance departments were moderately or very fair, were 70%, 69% and 63%, respectively. The equivalent responses from non-senior respondents were 48%, 55% and 47%, respectively. As with the overall sample the highest ratings are perhaps associated with the greatest knowledge, with senior respondents being those most likely to be involved in the wider academic institutional network. The analysis of old and new universities revealed only one significant difference at the 0Ð05 level, with 67% of old university respondents perceiving that the rating of their own department was moderately or very fair, compared with only 51% of new university respondents. This may, of course, merely reflect the fact that generally the old universities fare much better in the RAE exercises than the new universities. Doyle et al. (1996), for example, note that in the 1992 RAE new universities were rated more than half a grade lower than old universities. They also noted that

IMPACT OF RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISES

347

departments with a staff member on the RAE panel fared significantly better as a result of this. Publication outlets The analysis by seniority and institutional affiliation revealed few significant differences at the 0Ð05 level or greater. The distribution of responses to the importance of top US research journals was significantly different at the 0Ð01 level between old and new universities. As many as 83% of old university respondents felt that top US research journals were very important, compared with 60% of new university respondents. On the other hand, the percentages of old university respondents who felt that book reviews and refereed conference proceedings were either not very important or only of slight importance were 97% and 76% respectively, whereas the equivalent percentages for new universities were 78% and 57% respectively. This may reflect the fact that some new university respondents, despite the statements by the RAE panels, still attach some importance to non-research publications. DISCUSSION We speculate below on some of the possible implications of our findings. Although our primary focus is on accounting research and on academic accountants, our findings are also likely to be relevant for business-related topics and for academia in general. Many of our findings confirm the suspicions of the prior literature and complement the study by Harley 2000. For accounting research, the UK academic accountants clearly perceive the need to publish in top UK or top US journals. This is, perhaps, surprising given the assurances by members of the Accounting Panel such as Geoffrey Whittington that journals provide, at best, only a screening process and that the ultimate criterion is the quality of the work submitted. However, given the difficulty of publishing in top US journals through limited networking opportunities and the parochialism of US journals (i.e. their reluctance to publish articles which have a non-US focus),17 most UK leading accountants will probably be forced to target top UK journals. Brinn et al. (1996) found that Accounting, Organizations and Society, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting and Accounting and Business Research were regarded by a sample of UK academics as the top three UK journals in terms of research quality. Unfortunately, given the numbers of authors attempting to publish in these journals, the competition to get into them is likely to intensify. This, in turn, will place more pressure on UK accounting academics. The likely implication for other publication outlets is that they will become increasingly less attractive to research-oriented academics. Whilst

348

T. BRINN ET AL.

there may still be a role for research monographs published by professional bodies, textbooks are likely to be neglected or only written for love or money. Similarly, professional journal articles will not be a high priority. Cottingham & Hussey (2000), for example, show that the total number of academic articles published by UK academics in five leading professional accounting journals (Accountancy, Management Accounting, Certified Accountant, CA Magazine and Public Finance) have more or less continually declined from 1987–1996. In 1987, 90 articles were published. However, by 1996 only 68 were published. Moreover, there appears to be a recent trend for accounting practitioner journals and accounting professional bodies to relaunch themselves in a more business-orientated way. For example, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has recently changed the title of its Research Board to the Centre for Business Performance. The much vaunted gap between academic accountants and professional, practitioner accountants will be likely to increase (see, for example, Lee (1989) on the UK and Zeff (1989) on the US). Indeed, one irony may be that professional funding will be granted to academics to pursue academic projects to be published in academic journals, read by an academic audience. Another potential consequence is pressure on professionally-serviced courses: ‘50% of my staff (of 30) are involved with professional courses (CIMA, ACCA, ATII) . . . RAE ignored or even works against these individuals and the department in which they reside’ (head of department, new university).

This head of department, therefore, appears to suggest that the RAE discriminates against non-researchers. This is, of course, the nature of the RAE. Many academics teaching professional courses have neither the time, inclination nor the training to do research. Teaching professional courses and not researching appears prima facie a legitimate academic activity. However, the existence of the RAE does create latent tensions. The much lower levels of importance attached to edited books, professional journals and teaching-oriented books and book chapters thus have direct implications for the relationship between accounting research and accounting practice. The dissemination of research findings to accounting practitioners through professional journal articles and to students through text books has traditionally been regarded as a legitimate form of academic activity. It has also helped to support claims that accounting and finance research is of practical relevance. Parker et al. (1998: p. 388) note that their interviewees: ‘argued that on the one hand academics were being told by politicians and the community that it was important for them to communicate with the general, business and professional communities, while on the other hand, government research assessment criteria were contradicting this.’

IMPACT OF RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISES

349

A similar point of view was expressed by respondents to our survey. The following observation is typical: ‘More emphasis is required on professional liaison/publication, i.e. on influencing (or trying to influence) practice’ (lecturer, old university)

The lack of practical relevance is also captured by the following comment: ‘The RAE is a flawed exercise which only takes account of a very narrow definition of research activity and mitigates against theory into practice activities by academic staff in favour of solely theoretical matters. There is no evidence of any link between eventual utility and refereed publications.’ (professor, new university)

The RAE may also encourage academics to focus on ‘productive’ rather than ‘non-productive’ research activities. By this, we mean that more attention may be paid to publishing one’s own papers rather than assisting the general research process. For example, reviewing papers for academic journals may become less attractive, especially for those not on the editorial board. There will be pressures to cut corners when reviewing. As Heald & Geaughan (1994) comment, academics are being asked to segment themselves to behave aggressively in some contexts (e.g. higher research achievement) and altruistically in others (journal and project refereeing, external examinerships, performance appraisal and quality assurance). However, academics cannot match all expectations, which puts pressure on the altruistic ones. Viewed from the perspective of the government and the funding councils, our research sends mixed signals. On the one hand, our respondents perceived that the RAEs had a positive rather than a negative impact on departmental research quality and quantity (50% vs. 17% for research quality and 74% vs. 7% for research quantity). Presumably, this will hearten the research funding councils as the avowed aim of the RAEs is to improve UK research. Even more comforting will be the fact that the majority of respondents, particularly the senior respondents, perceived the process to be fair. On the other hand, academic research is often denounced as being irrelevant to practitioners. For example, Harley (2000, p. 565) notes a concern that ‘the search for publication in high status academic journals has occasioned a move away from the publication of professionally relevant and accessible research’. If this is so, the decline in the practical relevance of the research being undertaken and the lack of incentives to disseminate research developments through non-refereed publication outlets is contrary to the government’s aim of encouraging business-related research activity. Moreover, the adverse consequences for teaching and administration and job quality provide further concerns. Weetman (1993), in a Scottish context, finds that 12 out of 21 recruits to higher education in the late 1980s saw their jobs in a worse light than they had anticipated. The results from our overall sample support this, with 51% of our respondents reporting a negative

350

T. BRINN ET AL.

impact on departmental teaching, 53% on departmental administration and 50% on quality of job. The following are typical of the comments received: ‘I think you have to ‘play the game’ vis a vis the RAE for your university’s benefit - personally I feel it’s a negative force on the underlying quality of research and on the job satisfaction/stress levels’ (senior lecturer, old university)

Given the RAE’s perceived negative impact upon teaching, it may be necessary to increasingly monitor the standard of teaching. This process is already underway through the TQAs. The assessment of teaching quality is thus likely to continue and, if the past is a reliable guide to the future, in all probability the institutional mechanisms will become more sophisticated. It is likely that it will become increasingly difficult to be excellent at both teaching and research. However, if it becomes impossible to achieve both, institutions are likely to sacrifice the teaching of accounting to research in accounting as long as the monetary rewards attach to the RAEs not the TQAs. Unless, and until, the TQAs have money attached to them, the TQAs will have difficulty counterbalancing the effect of RAEs. The problem is that this heightens governmental interference within the higher education sector. Teaching, like research, becomes commodified (see, for example, Dillard & Tinker, 1996, on the US). The same consequences upon job quality may occur as has already happened for schools: more accountability, more auditability, more job dissatisfaction and lowered job morale. Whether or not significant efficiency gains will arise has also been questioned. Jones (1986: p. 117), for example, identifies the use of accounting information and systems to ‘create a facade of efficiency’. The danger is that the more dirigiste the environment, the less motivated the workforce. The very high level of importance attached to top UK research journals also has implications for the recruitment and training of new academics. Given the research methodologies now required by top UK and US journals, increasingly only recruits from a Ph.D. programme are likely to possess the necessary research methods skills valued by accounting departments constrained by the short time horizons of RAE exercises. Already by the late 1980s, the most popular route for accountants into the university sector (rather than the polytechnic sector) was recruiting ex-students (Holland, 1991). Recruits from the profession are therefore now seen as less desirable and this has implications for the training of UK accountants. Traditionally, many UK accounting courses are staffed by non-Ph.D., professionally qualified accountants. They teach on courses which are accredited by the UK professional bodies and which attract good quality students in terms of ‘A’ level scores. Given the RAEs’ impact on recruitment policies these students are, in future, increasingly likely to be taught by non-professionally qualified, Ph.D. faculty. This problem is compounded by the steady drift of academic pay downwards when compared to business and professional

IMPACT OF RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISES

351

salaries. Professionally qualified staff are increasingly reluctant to move into academia. These developments will widen even further the gap between academic accounting and practice and may lead to the content of university accounting education being seen of less and less relevance to the needs of professional accounting bodies. In addition to shifting the balance among accounting and finance faculty towards those with Ph.D.s, other staffing consequences are likely. In many universities there is an increasing tendency to appoint faculty who will specialize in either teaching or research. Traditionally, university staff, particularly at the old universities, have both taught and researched. Appointing staff on teaching-only contracts or as research fellows with little or no teaching is now not unusual.18 Appointments to permanent posts are unlikely to be made unless candidates can demonstrate a strong contribution to the RAE. This in turn has created a market for UK academics, a situation which was summed up emotively by one professor in an old university as follows: ‘we have tended to export senior lecturers (and lecturers) to chairs elsewhere. This has weakened us, left us with the mistakes in our own hiring policy, and encouraged ‘focus’ (aka selfish non-collegial behaviour exploiting the social capital of the department). Other departments may benefit as they ‘poach’ high fliers’.

There is, thus, increased opportunity for job mobility and promotion for some. Whether or not such increased staff transfer actually enhances the productivity of the UK university system is, however, a moot point. Finally, we detected signs that the RAE was affecting the mindset of individuals. Individual researchers are beginning to label themselves and be labelled using RAE terminology. We cite an interesting example of this: ‘I have been told that we have to be 5Ł researchers in order to be promoted, and that I am ‘only’ 5. Since I am ‘5’ presumably, I am desirable by 4 rated departments.’ (reader, old university)19

CONCLUSIONS This paper analyses the perceived impact of the RAEs reported by 182 UK accounting academics. Overall, these academics perceived that the quality and quantity of research in the UK had improved. However, teaching and administration as well as the overall quality of the job had suffered. The main research indicator was perceived to be publication in top UK and US journals. Finally, our respondents perceived the overall process to have produced fair results. The implications of our study are many and various. Although our study is set within an accounting context, the general implications are likely to be relevant in cognate disciplines, such as business and management studies,

352

T. BRINN ET AL.

economics, quantitative methods and law. The RAE has proved an efficient mechanism for concentrating university minds on research. We, therefore, speculate that it is likely to continue in one shape or form. We expect increased submissions to key UK journals such as Accounting and Business Research, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting and the British Accounting Review. We also speculate that the increase in research focus is likely to mean that accountability procedures designed to support the UK’s teaching infrastructure will remain in place and perhaps grow more sophisticated. As long as teaching excellence remains unfunded, while research excellence is funded, institutions are likely to favour research if forced to make a choice. In addition, the dichotomy between the UK professional accountancy bodies and academic accountants may grow. There are several reasons. First, when research-active universities are recruiting new faculty the possession of a Ph.D. is likely to be seen as more important than a professional qualification. Second, good accounting faculty will be less likely to publish in professional journals preferring instead more prestigious research journals. Third, accounting faculty are likely to be less inclined to devote time and effort to professional activities which do not count towards the RAE. This divorce between accounting procedure and academic theory may lead to disenchantment by the professional accounting institutes with university accounting teaching provision.20 The current and future consequences of the successive RAEs are thus likely to be profound. Research quality and quantity may well improve. However, the price may be heavy. Teaching and administrative duties may be regarded as less important and the ‘good citizen’ qualities that are essential to the effective running of university departments will be eroded. Growing job dissatisfaction may result in increased staff turnover and difficulty recruiting accountants, particularly those with professional qualifications. Finally, the link between academic accountants and practitioners is likely to be put under increased strain. Accounting as an academic area of study emerged from a professional specialism. Accounting will thus lose part of its special identity as an area of not only academic study but also one with clear links to the needs of accounting practice, and become instead simply a traditional academic university subject. Accounting is thus, in danger, of losing its roots. Whether or not this is a good thing is, of course, debatable! NOTES 1. Other criteria such as research grants and research student numbers were secondary criteria, which were not strictly necessary for a good rating, but which may have improved a rating. 2. Attempts to quantify the assessment of research performance also exist in Australia through the Australian Quality Reviews and in the Netherlands there is a form of peer review.

IMPACT OF RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISES

353

3. This has resulted in largely anecdotal speculation concerning the creation of a market for ‘buying’ top academics. 4. Evidence of the perceived impact of the RAEs on accounting and other disciplines is now appearing. See, for example, Vick et al. (1998), which examines the perceptions of academic lawyers and Harley (2000) on academic accountants. 5. The grade of principal lecturers is found in new universities. Senior lecturers in new universities were included in the ‘lecturers’ category. The ‘other’ category consists mainly of respondents who described themselves as research fellows or equivalent. 6. The length of service of our respondents means that a large proportion of these are likely to have been academics before the first RAE of 1986 and can therefore respond authoritatively on the impact of the RAEs. Moreover, the earlier RAEs had less impact upon institutional funding than the later ones. 7. The high proportion of active researchers and successful publishers represents both a strength and weakness of the research. A strength in that respondents are more likely to be knowledgeable of the research and publication process; a weakness is that the views of less active researchers are under represented. In other respects, however, the sample does appear to be representative of the underlying population. For example, Gray & Helliar’s (1994) analysis of the characteristics of UK accounting academics revealed that 66% were professionally qualified accountants and 37% possessed a Ph.D. For our sample the percentages were 68 and 39, respectively. Also 57 of our respondents voluntarily disclosed their institutional affiliation. Of these approximately 80% were from English Universities, 15% from Scottish Universities and the remainder from Northern Irish or Welsh Universities. 8. The respondents were asked to use a five-point Likert scale which ranged from 1 (great negative impact), through 2 (moderate negative impact), 3 (neutral), 4 (moderate positive impact) to 5 (great positive impact). For presentational purposes in Table 2, scale points 1 and 2 have been combined as ‘negative impact’ and scale points 4 and 5 have been combined as ‘positive impact’. The means and tests of statistical significance are based on the full range of responses. 9. Spearman’s Rho correlation coefficient was used to test for the correlation between the job-related impacts of the RAE on the respondents as individuals and as members of departments. The eight impacts in table 2 were tested for the full sample and for the sub-samples of senior/non-senior and old/new. Of the total of 40 correlation tests, 33 were significant at the 0Ð01 level, 4 at the 0Ð05 level and 2 at the 0Ð1 level. The only non-significant relationship was for the job-related impact on quantity of publications by new university respondents. 10. These 22 responses were selected after surveying the pattern of overall responses. They formed a natural sub-population as they were divided from the main group of responses by a Christmas break. 11. It is, of course, problematic whether scholarship and research are actually synonymous. 12. The scale for fairness ranged from 1 (very unfair), through 2 (moderately unfair), 3 (neutral), 4 (moderately fair), to 5 (very fair). For presentational purposes in Table 3, points 1 and 2 are combined as ‘unfair’ and points 4 and 5 are combined as ‘fair’. The means and tests of statistical significance have been calculated from the full range of responses. 13. The scale for importance ranged from 1 (not very important), through 2 (of slight importance), 3 (neutral), 4 (moderately important), to 5 (very important). For presentational purposes in Tables 4 and 5, scale points 1 and 2 have been combined as ‘not important’ and scale points 4 and 5 have been combined as ‘important’. The means and tests of statistical significance have been calculated from the full range of responses. 14. It is difficult to speculate about these individuals. However, anecdotal evidence does suggest that a small minority of UK academics heavily discount the statistical, quantitative approach of many of the top US journals preferring more qualitative methodologies.

354

T. BRINN ET AL.

15. This is predictable given the emphasis on research quality. However, perhaps surprisingly there was still a minority of academics who saw teaching-oriented books and teachingoriented book chapters as neutral or important. 16. Promotion prospects are not necessarily restricted to promotion to a senior post in the same, or a different, university (eg professor). Salary enhancements are often viewed as a form of promotion. Moreover, inter-university moves, for example, from lesser to higher RAE rated institutions may also be viewed by ‘research’ professors as a form of promotion. 17. For example, we note that throughout the whole of the 1990s only two UK accounting academics had articles published in The Accounting Review. 18. A case in point is the report in the Times Higher Education Supplement of Newcastle University’s plan to appoint staff on teaching-only or research-only contracts (Utley, 1999). 19. This is an interesting quotation as it actually stretches the definition of 5Ł research used by the RAE panels. 5Ł research quality equates to the attainable levels of international excellence in a majority of sub areas of activity and attainable levels of national excellence in others. It is thus strictly a description of a department not an individual. 20. Although the consequences of this are highly speculative there is, as one of the reviewers to this paper pointed out, the possibility of corporate universities financed by major international businesses emerging as competitors to university education.

REFERENCES Angluin, D & Scapens, R.W. (2000). ‘Transparency, accounting knowledge and perceived fairness in UK universities’ resource allocation: results from a survey of accounting and finance’, The British Accounting Review, 32(1), pp. 1–42. Brinn, A., Jones, M.J. & Pendlebury, M. (1996). ‘UK accountants’ perceptions of research journal quality’, Accounting and Business Research, Summer, pp. 265–278. Cottingham, J. & Hussey, R. (2000). ‘Publishing in professional accounting journals: academic institutional performance 1987–1996’, The British Accounting Review, 32(1), pp. 101–114. Dillard, J.F. & Tinker, T. (1996). ‘Commodifying business and accounting education: the implications of accreditation’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 7, pp. 215–225. Doyle, J.R., Arthurs, A.J., Green, R.H., McAulay, L., Pitt, M.R., & Bottomley, P.A. (1996). ‘The judge, the model of the judge and the model of the judged as judge, analysis of the UK 1992 research assessment exercise data for business and management studies’, OMEGA, 24, pp. 13–28. Gee, K.P. & Gray, R.H. (1989). ‘Consistency and stability of UK academic publication output criteria in accounting’, The British Accounting Review, 2(1), pp. 43–54. Gray, R.H., Haslam, J. & Prodhan, B. (1987). ‘Academic departments of accounting in the UK: a note on publication output’, The British Accounting Review, 19(10), pp. 53–73. Gray, R.H. & Helliar, C. (1994). ‘UK accounting academics and publication: an exploration of observable variables associated with publication output’, The British Accounting Review, 26(3), pp. 235–254. Harley, S. (2000). ‘Accountants divided: research selectivity and academic accounting labour in UK universities’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 11(5), pp. 549–82. Heald, D. & Geaughan, N. (1994). ‘Formula funding of UK higher education: rationales, design and probable consequences’, Financial Accountability and Management, 10(4), pp. 267–289. Holland, K. (1991). ‘Recruitment by accounting departments in the higher education sector: an analysis of recent appointees’, The British Accounting Review, 23, pp. 49–66.

IMPACT OF RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISES

355

Humphrey, C., Moizer, P & Owen, D. (1995). ‘Questioning the value of the research selectivity process in British university accounting’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 5(3), pp. 141–164. Hutchinson, C. (1989). ‘Consistency and stability of UK academic publication output criteria in accounting: a comment’, The British Accounting Review, 23(3), pp. 279–284. Jones, C.S. (1986). ‘Universities, on becoming what they are not, Financial Accountability and Management, 2(2), pp. 107–119. Lee, T. (1989). ‘Education, practice and research in accounting: gaps, closed loops, bridges and magic accounting’, Accounting and Business Research, 19(75), pp. 237–257. Lyall, D. (1978), ‘UK university accounting departments: journal output performance 1972–1976’, The British Accounting Review, 10(1), pp. 22–25. Mace, J. (1993). ‘University funding changes and university efficiency’, Higher Education Review, 25(2), pp. 7–22. Parker, L., Guthrie, J. & Gray, R. (1998). ‘Accounting and management research: passwords from the gatekeepers’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 11(4), pp. 371–402. Peasnell, K.V. & Williams, D.J. (1996). ‘Ersatz academics and scholar saints: the supply of financial accounting research’, Abacus, 22(2), pp. 121–135. Power, M. (1997). The Audit Society. Oxford University Press. Puxty, A.G., Sikka, P. & Willmott, H.C. (1994). ‘Systems of surveillance and the silencing of UK academic accounting labour’, The British Accounting Review, 26, pp. 137–171. Taylor, J. (1994). ‘Measuring research performance in business and management studies in the United Kingdom: the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise’, British Journal of Management, 5, pp. 275–288. Utley, A. (1999). ‘Newcastle plan sparks fears of backdoor teach-only contracts’, The Times Higher Education Supplement, November 26, 1999, p. 3. Vick, D.W., Murray, A.D., Little, G.F. & Campbell, K. (1998). ‘The perceptions of academic lawyers concerning the effects of the United Kingdom’s research assessment exercise’, Journal of Law and Society, 25(4), December, pp. 536–61. Weetman, P. (1993). ‘Recruitment by accounting departments in the higher education sector: a comment on the Scottish experience’, The British Accounting Review, 25, pp. 287–300. Whittington, G. (1993). ‘The 1992 Research Assessment Exercise’, The British Accounting Review, 25(4), December, pp. 383–395. Whittington, G. (1997), The 1996 Research Assessment Exercise’, The British Accounting Review, 29, pp. 181–197. Willmott, H. (1995). ‘Managing the academics: commodification and control in the development of university education in the UK’, Human Relations, 48(9), pp. 993–1027. Zeff, S.A. (1989). ‘Recent trends in the USA.: implications for UK’, The British Accounting Review, 21, pp. 159–176.