Formulaic follies revisited: or, why geography researchers get almost twice as much money as do town planners in English universities
The 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pio:envira:v:25:y:1993:i:10:p:1527-1534. See general 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.