RAE 2008:

Goldsmiths Outcomes

Sample Quality Profile

1045405020University Y

51540251550University X

Unclassified1

star

2

star

3

star

4

star

Percentage of research activity in the submission judged to meet the standard for:

FTE

Category A

Staff

Submitted

For assessment

Unit of assessment

A

1045405020University Y

51540251550University X

Unclassified1

star

2

star

3

star

4

star

Percentage of research activity in the submission judged to meet the standard for:

FTE

Category A

Staff

Submitted

For assessment

Unit of assessment

A

Definitions of quality levels

Four star Quality that is world leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour.

Three star Quality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour but which nonetheless falls short of the highest standard of excellence.

Two star Quality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour.

One star Quality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour.

Unclassified Quality that falls below the standard of nationally recognised. Or which does not meet the published definition of research for the purpose of this assessment

Score Goldsmiths’ rank nationally - 2008 Goldsmiths 2001 rank

Criterion

Go

ldsm

ith

s

Nat

ion

al

aver

ag

e

vs all HEIs (n=132)

vs.

all H

EIs

Grade Point Average (0 – 4)

(reported by the Times and the Guardian)

†tied with UEA & Surrey

Score Goldsmiths’ rank nationally - 2008 Goldsmiths 2001 rank

Criterion

Go

ldsm

ith

s

Nat

ion

al

aver

ag

e

vs all HEIs (n=132)

vs.

all H

EIs

Grade Point Average (0 – 4)

(reported by the Times and the Guardian)

2.58 2.56 33† 42

†tied with UEA & Surrey

Score Goldsmiths’ rank nationally - 2008 Goldsmiths 2001 rank

Criterion

Go

ldsm

ith

s

199

4 g

rou

p

aver

ag

e

vs 1994 group

(n=18)

vs 1

994

grou

p

Grade Point Average (0 – 4)

(reported by the Times and the Guardian)

2.58 2.67 14† 16

†tied with UEA & Surrey

Score Goldsmiths’ rank nationally - 2008 Goldsmiths 2001 rank

Criterion

Go

ldsm

ith

s

Nat

ion

al

aver

ag

e

vs all HEIs (n=132)

vs.

all H

EIs

Grade Point Average (0 – 4)

(reported by the Times and the Guardian)

2.58 2.56 33† 42

% activity rated as either 3* or 4*

†tied with UEA & Surrey

Score Goldsmiths’ rank nationally - 2008 Goldsmiths 2001 rank

Criterion

Go

ldsm

ith

s

Nat

ion

al

aver

ag

e

vs all HEIs (n=132)

vs.

all H

EIs

Grade Point Average (0 – 4)

(reported by the Times and the Guardian)

2.58 2.56 33† 42

% activity rated as either 3* or 4*

54.0 41.2 33† n/a

†tied with UEA & Surrey

Score Goldsmiths’ rank nationally - 2008 Goldsmiths 2001 rank

Criterion

Go

ldsm

ith

s

199

4 g

rou

p

aver

ag

e

vs 1994 group

(n=18)

vs 1

994

grou

p

Grade Point Average (0 – 4)

(reported by the Times and the Guardian)

2.58 2.67 14† 16

% activity rated as either 3* or 4*

54.0 56.7 14† n/a

†tied with UEA & Surrey

Score Goldsmiths’ rank nationally - 2008 Goldsmiths 2001 rank

Criterion

Go

ldsm

ith

s

Nat

ion

al

aver

ag

e

vs all HEIs (n=132)

vs.

all H

EIs

Grade Point Average (0 – 4)

(reported by the Times and the Guardian)

2.58 2.56 33† 42

% activity rated as either 3* or 4*

54.0 41.2 33† n/a

% activity rated as 4*

†tied with UEA & Surrey *tied with Essex

Score Goldsmiths’ rank nationally - 2008 Goldsmiths 2001 rank

Criterion

Go

ldsm

ith

s

Nat

ion

al

aver

ag

e

vs all HEIs (n=132)

vs.

all H

EIs

Grade Point Average (0 – 4)

(reported by the Times and the Guardian)

2.58 2.56 33† 42

% activity rated as either 3* or 4*

54.0 41.2 33† n/a

% activity rated as 4* 22.1 11.7 9* n/a

†tied with UEA & Surrey *tied with Essex

Score Goldsmiths’ rank nationally - 2008 Goldsmiths 2001 rank

Criterion

Go

ldsm

ith

s

199

4 g

rou

p

aver

ag

e

vs 1994 group

(n=18)

vs 1

994

grou

p

Grade Point Average (0 – 4)

(reported by the Times and the Guardian)

2.58 2.67 14† 16

% activity rated as either 3* or 4*

54.0 56.7 14† n/a

% activity rated as 4* 22.1 17.8 2* n/a

†tied with UEA & Surrey *tied with Essex

2001 2008 Grade Point Average (max possible = 4.0)

% of activity at 4* (highest possible score)

% of activity at 4* or 3* (highest two scores)

Unit of Assessment Score No. of

Subs Rank (incl)

Percentile (range)

No. of Subs Actual

(National average)

Percentile (range)

Actual Percentile

(range) Actual

Percentile (range)

Allied Health 3a 75 29-49 51.5

(38-65) 70 0.70

(National 2.04) 99.0 (99-99)

0 (National 9)

85.0 (70-100)

0 (National 34)

98.5 (97-100)

Anthropology 5 20 3-14 42.5

(15-70) 19 2.65

(National 2.66) 55.0 ≈ (42-68)

25 (National 25)

52.5 ≈ (42-63)

55 (National 57)

55.0 ≈ (42-68)

Art & Design 5 75 1 - 12 8.0

(1–16) 72 2.70

(National 2.34) 20.5 (19-22)

35 (National 17)

9.5 ≈ (6-13)

55 (National 46)

28.5 (24-33)

Art & Design 5 75 1 - 12 8.0

(1–16) 72 2.55

(National 2.34) 27.0 (25-29)

20 (National 17)

23.5 (21-26)

55 (National 46)

28.5 (24-33)

Comms/Media 5* 38 1-2 3.0

(1–5) 47 3.20

(National 2.56 9.0 (8-10)

45 (National 18)

11.0 (9-13)

80 (National 54)

7.5 (6-9)

Computing 3b 80 67-75 90.0

(84-94) 81 2.70

(National 2.73) 45.5 (44-47)

20 (National 20)

32.5 (28-37)

63 (National 60)

47.5 (46-49)

Drama 4 41 9-17 31.5

(22-41) 42 2.70

(National 2.61) 39.5 ≈ (36-43)

20 (National 22)

40.5 ≈ (36-45)

65 (National 56)

34.5 ≈ (33-36)

Education 4 83 15-31 27.5

(18-37) 82 1.95

(National 2.01) 50.0 (49-51)

10 (National 15)

34.5 ≈ (26-43)

30 (National 43)

43.5 (38-49)

English/Lit 5 89 15-41 32.5

(17-46) 87 2.65

(National 2.64) 41.0 ≈ (41-41)

15 (National 23)

41.5 ≈ (37-46)

65 (National 55)

21.5 ≈ (13-30)

History 4 95 40-71 58.5

(42-75) 83 2.05

(National 2.69) 85.5 (84-87)

10 (National 22)

65.0 ≈ (58-72)

30 (National 57)

84.5 (81-88)

History of Art 3b 39 32-36 87.0

(82-92) 30 2.70

(National 2.85) 62.0 (57-67)

20 (National 26)

41.5 (30-53)

50 (National 65)

78.0 () (73-83)

Music 5 59 10-21 26.5

(17-36) 53 2.90

(National 2.67) 31.0 ≈ (26-36)

30 (National 24)

28.0 ≈ (26-30)

70 (National 59)

34.0 ≈ (30-38)

Politics - - - - 59 2.10

(National 2.37) 57.5 n/a (54-61)

10 (National 16)

45.0 n/a (36-54)

30 (National 44)

58.5 n/a (54-63)

Psychology 4 73 32-46 53.5

(44-63) 76 2.50

(National 2.36) 32.0 (32-32)

10 (National 11)

30.5 (24-37)

50 (National 34)

32.0 (30-34)

Sociology 5* 48 1-6 6.5

(1–13) 39 2.85

(National 2.47) 5.0 ≈ (1-10)

35 (National 20)

7.5 ≈ (5-10)

60 (National 48)

6.5 ≈ (1-13)

Social Work - - - - 68 2.25

(National 2.58) 70.0 n/a (66-74)

10 (National 16)

70.5 n/a (65-76)

35 (National 53)

43.5 n/a (34-53)

Summary of outcomes in 2008 showing relative positions of each submission nationally and in comparison with 2001

2001 2008 Grade Point Average (max possible = 4.0)

% of activity at 4* (highest possible score)

% of activity at 4* or 3* (highest two scores)

Unit of Assessment Score No. of

Subs Rank (incl)

Percentile (range)

No. of Subs Actual

(National average)

Percentile (range)

Actual Percentile

(range) Actual

Percentile (range)

Media/Comms 5* 38 1-2 3.0

(1–5) 47 3.20

(National 2.56 9.0 (8-10)

45 (National 18)

11.0 (9-13)

80 (National 54)

7.5 (6-9)

Sociology 5* 48 1-6 6.5

(1–13) 39 2.85

(National 2.47) 5.0 ≈ (1-10)

35 (National 20)

7.5 ≈ (5-10)

60 (National 48)

6.5 ≈ (1-13)

• Sociology and Media & Comms are both in the top 10% of submissions nationally

• Sociology retains top position on most indices, tying with three other submissions

• Art, Design, and Psychology submissions are in the top third nationally

• Drama and Music are in the upper half

PARTICULAR SUCCESSES …

2001 2008 Grade Point Average (max possible = 4.0)

% of activity at 4* (highest possible score)

% of activity at 4* or 3* (highest two scores)

Unit of Assessment Score No. of

Subs Rank (incl)

Percentile (range)

No. of Subs Actual

(National average)

Percentile (range)

Actual Percentile

(range) Actual

Percentile (range)

Computing 3b 80 67-75 90.0

(84-94) 81 2.70

(National 2.73) 45.5 (44-47)

20 (National 20)

32.5 (28-37)

63 (National 60)

47.5 (46-49)

History of Art 3b 39 32-36 87.0

(82-92) 30 2.70

(National 2.85) 62.0 (57-67)

20 (National 26)

41.5 (30-53)

50 (National 65)

78.0 () (73-83)

Psychology 4 73 32-46 53.5

(44-63) 76 2.50

(National 2.36) 32.0 (32-32)

10 (National 11)

30.5 (24-37)

50 (National 34)

32.0 (30-34)

• Computing, Visual Cultures (History of Art) and Psychology submissions were all clear ‘risers’

• Art and Design (separate submissions) and Educational Studies slipped somewhat

• History and Art Psychotherapy (Allied Health Professions) showed pronounced drops

• Politics and Social Policy & Social Work were entered for the first time in 2008

Comparing outcomes in RAE2008 against RAE2001 ….

• Percentages of activity rated 4* varies substantially between different panels (e.g. from 9% for Allied Health Professions to 24% for Music) – this limits comparability of profiles across UoAs

• ‘Activity’ reflects a combination of outputs, esteem indicators and research environment. Different panels weighted these differently, and also appear to have adopted different approaches to profiling.

• Some submissions gained very impressive ‘research environment’ and/or ‘esteem indicator’ scores which contributed very substantially to their aggregate activity profiles (e.g. Sociology, Anthropology, Art, Design, Media & Comms)

Some general observations …

• Identify factors contributing to relatively weak performance in departments whose outcomes were disappointing

• Focus on research environment issues – what can we do to share and develop (or effectively describe) good practice?

• Maintain high levels of awareness of how the Research Excellence Framework is developing in order to inform strategies both centrally and at departmental levels – e.g. via a Departmental Research Committee network

… and action plans

Timetable for introducing the Research Excellence Framework (REF)

Spring 2008 to Summer 2009- Undertake pilot of bibliometric indicators. Develop proposals for other aspects of the REF across all subjects. - Expert Advisory Groups meet to advise us on our proposals.- Assess the impact of our proposals in terms of equality and diversity, sustainability and regulatory

burden.

Autumn 2009Consult on all main features of the REF including operational details of thebibliometrics process, use of other quantitative indicators, subject boundariesand procedures for expert review.

Early 2010 Announce outcomes and next steps following consultation.Establish expert panels for all subjects.

Calendar year 2010Undertake bibliometrics assessment (developmental).Consult on choice and use of assessment components for each subject group.

2011 to 2013Gradual introduction of REF elements leading to full implementation.

2014-15HEFCE research funding for all subjects driven by REF from this time onwards.

Coming soon…

Goldsmiths Research Management System