| Abstract: | abstract This article examines the outcome of the 1996 research assessment exercise (RAE) both within the context of the exercise itself and through a comparison with the 1992 RAE. The analysis is undertaken at the institutional, rather than subject discipline, level utilising the average weighted rating point achieved by those members of the Committee of Vice‐Chancellors and Principals who participated in both selectivity exercises. The main findings from this study are that a clear difference remains evident between old and new universities with only one institution bridging the gap of the two sectors. However, none of the new universities occupy the lowest point on the rating scale as had previously occurred. An overall increase in the rating point appears to have been achieved with the submission of a smaller percentage of staff, although a positive relationship is revealed between these two indicators suggesting that this remains a questionable policy manoeuvre to improve ratings. Finally, the longitudinal analysis indicates that the old universities witnessed a net decline in rating point whilst the new universities enjoyed a considerable average rate of growth in their ratings thereby facilitating the speculative calculation of convergence between the two sectors at the institutional level. The article concludes with a brief discussion concerning the efficacy of the proposed options for distribution of research monies in relation to the maintenance of a unified higher education (HE) sector. |
