The research assessment exercise in Hong Kong: Positive and negative consequences

Authors

  • Jan Currie Murdoch University

Abstract

This article reports findings from 39 interviews from two Hong Kong universities and offers a critique of the RAE system. Respondents stated that the main emphasis in counting research productivity was on articles in prestigious international journals. There were many negative comments about this as the main quality indicator. Some respondents mentioned that international journal articles benefited natural and physical scientists more than social scientists and devalued local research and local journals, resulting in a bias towards the West. The more positive comments accepted the RAE, feeling that there was an emphasis on quality not just quantity. In terms of the impact of the RAEs, many participants expressed that the exercises encouraged a great deal more publishing and that academics could fast track their careers by publishing more. However, the negative responses indicated that the RAEs encouraged a glut of publications that were more mediocre with little substance or originality.

Author Biography

Jan Currie, Murdoch University

Emeritus Professor Jan Currie works at the Centre for Social and Community Research at Murdoch University and is Adjunct Professor in Economics and Commerce at the University of Western Australia. She specialises in higher education policy, the impact of globalisation on universities, gender equity, and the sociology of work. Her most recent co-authored book with Carol J. Petersen and Ka Ho Mok is Academic Freedom in Hong Kong (Lexington Press, 2006).

Downloads

Published

2008-05-01

Issue

Section

General Refereed Papers