Formulaic follies revisited: or, why geography researchers get almost twice as much money as do town planners in English universities
AbstractThe funding for research activities in English universities from 1993/94 on is based on a formula allocation which has many apparent anomalies: variations in the standardised sums available per discipline bear little relationship to interdisciplinary differences in research costs. Using data released by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, I seek to understand how those differences have come about. Only 43% of the variation could be accounted for statistically by a simple classification of disciplines into clinical, science, and social science/humanities. A further 17% was associated with four other factors reflecting institutional differences in aspects of the disciplines which could have been taken into account when the allocation formula was determined -- but which were not. The conclusion is that a much fairer system can and must replace that currently operated.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Pion Ltd, London in its journal Environment and Planning A.
Volume (Year): 25 (1993)
Issue (Month): 10 (October)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.pion.co.uk
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Neil Hammond).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.