| Abstract: | This paper finds that around 80 per cent of the differences in the ratings awarded in the 2001 RAE for social policy may be “explained” using half a dozen pieces of quantitative data. Social policy excellence—as judged by peer review—is associated with the award of doctorates, the amount of money raised, publications in a particular (if broad) range of journals and books by major publishers, and being large. Even taking account of differences on all these factors, the analysis found that new universities fared worse than their quantitative data would suggest. It is argued that quantitative data should play a larger role in decisions about research quality, aiding equity and transparency. |
