IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/yor/yorken/17-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Selection of Economics Lecturers into the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework Exercise: Outputs and Gender

Author

Listed:
  • Richard McManus
  • Karen Mumford
  • Cristina Sechel

Abstract

In the UK, Lecturers have future career paths that are the most sensitive to early recognition of research quality. Nevertheless, only 49% of the Lecturers in economics were submitted to the latest national Research Excellence Framework (REF2014): 40% of women and 53% of men. Using a rich new data source, and controlling for a range of observable characteristics expected to determine submission probability, we find more than 70% of the variance in selection propensity is left unexplained; implying considerable arbitrariness. A substantial conditional gender gap of 9.7% is also found. Given the potential inequalities associated with accumulative advantage for the individual, we fear that without a fully inclusive selection rule, Lecturers in economics should be left out of the UK REF process.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard McManus & Karen Mumford & Cristina Sechel, 2017. "The Selection of Economics Lecturers into the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework Exercise: Outputs and Gender," Discussion Papers 17/16, Department of Economics, University of York.
    • Handle: RePEc:yor:yorken:17/16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/economics/documents/discussionpapers/2017/1716.pdf
    File Function: Main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heather Sarsons, 2015. "Recognition for Group Work," Working Paper 254946, Harvard University OpenScholar.
    2. Smith, Simon & Ward, Vicky & House, Allan, 2011. "‘Impact’ in the proposals for the UK's Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1369-1379.
    3. M. Mitka & K. Mumford & C. Sechel, 2015. "The 10th Royal Economic Society Women’s Committee Survey: The Gender Balance of Academic Economics in the UK," Discussion Papers 15/10, Department of Economics, University of York.
    4. Arne Risa Hole, 2017. "Ranking Economics Journals Using Data From a National Research Evaluation Exercise," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 79(5), pages 621-636, October.
    5. Amanda Bayer & Cecilia Elena Rouse, 2016. "Diversity in the Economics Profession: A New Attack on an Old Problem," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(4), pages 221-242, Fall.
    6. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    7. Ben R Martin, 2011. "The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 247-254, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard McManus & Karen Mumford & Cristina Sechel, 2022. "Measuring research excellence amongst economics lecturers in the UK," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 386-404, April.
    2. Degl’Innocenti, Marta & Matousek, Roman & Tzeremes, Nickolaos G., 2019. "The interconnections of academic research and universities’ “third mission”: Evidence from the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    3. Karen Mumford & Cristina Sechel, 2017. "Pay, Rank and Job Satisfaction amongst Academic Economists in the UK," Discussion Papers 17/17, Department of Economics, University of York.
    4. Salter, Ammon & Salandra, Rossella & Walker, James, 2017. "Exploring preferences for impact versus publications among UK business and management academics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1769-1782.
    5. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna & Patricia Funk & Nagore Iriberri, 2020. "Are Referees and Editors in Economics Gender Neutral?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(1), pages 269-327.
    6. Buckle, Robert A. & Creedy, John & Ball, Ashley, 2020. "A Schumpeterian Gale: Using Longitudinal Data to Evaluate Responses to Performance-Based Research Funding Systems," Working Paper Series 9447, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.
    7. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    8. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy & Ashley Ball, 2021. "Fifteen Years of a PBRFS in New Zealand: Incentives and Outcomes," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 54(2), pages 208-230, June.
    9. Karen Mumford & Cristina Sechel, 2020. "Pay and Job Rank among Academic Economists in the UK: Is Gender Relevant?," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 58(1), pages 82-113, March.
    10. Geuna, Aldo & Piolatto, Matteo, 2016. "Research assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and difficult, but probably worth it (at least for a while)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 260-271.
    11. Gamage, Danula K. & Sevilla, Almudena & Smith, Sarah, 2020. "Women in Economics: A UK Perspective," IZA Discussion Papers 13477, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Eva María de la Torre & Fernando Casani & Carmen Pérez Esparrells, 2021. "Measuring universities’ engagement: a revision of the European research projects and the actual use of the so-called ‘third mission’ indicators," Revista de Estudios Regionales, Universidades Públicas de Andalucía, vol. 1, pages 97-128.
    13. Michael C. Calver & Maggie Lilith & Christopher R. Dickman, 2013. "A ‘perverse incentive’ from bibliometrics: could National Research Assessment Exercises (NRAEs) restrict literature availability for nature conservation?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 243-255, April.
    14. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy & Ashley Ball, 2021. "Fifteen Years of a PBRFS in New Zealand: Incentives and Outcomes," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 54(2), pages 208-230, June.
    15. Calabrese, Armando & Capece, Guendalina & Costa, Roberta & Di Pillo, Francesca & Giuffrida, Stefania, 2018. "A ‘power law’ based method to reduce size-related bias in indicators of knowledge performance: An application to university research assessment," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1263-1281.
    16. Berlemann, Michael & Haucap, Justus, 2015. "Which factors drive the decision to opt out of individual research rankings? An empirical study of academic resistance to change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1108-1115.
    17. Buckle, Robert A. & Creedy, John & Ball, Ashley, 2020. "A Schumpeterian Gale: Using Longitudinal Data to Evaluate Responses to Performance-Based Research Funding Systems," Working Paper Series 21104, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.
    18. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Jofre-Bonet, Mireia & Iori, Giulia & Maynou, Laia & Tumminello, Michele & Vassallo, Pietro, 2023. "Performance-based research funding: Evidence from the largest natural experiment worldwide," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    19. Daniele Rotolo & Michael Hopkins & Nicola Grassano, 2023. "Do funding sources complement or substitute? Examining the impact of cancer research publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 50-66, January.
    20. Irwin Feller, 2013. "Peer review and expert panels as techniques for evaluating the quality of academic research," Chapters, in: Albert N. Link & Nicholas S. Vonortas (ed.), Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation, chapter 5, pages 115-142, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    research excellence framework; gender; selection; outputs; quality.;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:yor:yorken:17/16. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Paul Hodgson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deyoruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.