Search

Highlights • Summary of research outputs submitted in forensic cognate disciplines in RAE2008 and REF2014. • Assessment of the value of these exercises in the audit of University research quality in forensic science. • Discussion of policy and implications for forensic science research quality assessment. Abstract Forensic science policy has been the subject of a series of judicial and parliamentary enquiries in the United Kingdom in recent decades. Forensic science research has been a recurrent theme in their reports, which have included recommendations for research into the economics of forensic service provision; for the development of expertise and centres of excellence; and for research to establish the validity of the forensic sciences. These recommendations reflect similar concerns expressed internationally—particularly in the United States. In the United Kingdom, however, the Forensic Science Service recently enjoyed a near monopoly in research, and limited research funding and activity in the Universities was exacerbated by the lack of visibility of forensic science in government audits of research quality. This study used established methods in evidence-based policy and research quality evaluation to analyse the range, quantity and quality of research submitted to the two most recent audits—RAE 2008 and REF 2014. Strengths and weaknesses in the methods used are discussed, and the findings analysed in relation to wider research policy issues in forensic science. The study concludes that consolidating forensic science as a peer-science in the academy is essential in order to establish a virtuous circle that will sustain research in the discipline—and address wider policy and socio-economic questions that persistently trouble the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to present the early stages of a critical analysis of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008 which is intended to generate a model that can be of practical use in the Research Excellence Framework 2013. By drilling down into the research outputs available on the RAE 2008 website we intend to compare the context and methodologies used in more and less successful submissions. We show how an on-going study may generate results that are useful in progressing towards both discovering answers to the Research Questions and refining of the methods used. The results of the RAE 2008 in the field of Business and Management may have been disappointing for a number of institutions. However, the feedback in the form of the RAE ratings is difficult to use in making improvements to performance. This paper uses Westminster Business School (WBS) a post-1992 business school, as an example, and focuses on the Research Output aspect of the RAE ratings. It shows how a comparison of a sample of submitted outputs from this business school and those of two more successful institutions is a relevant exercise which reveals some useful areas for improvement and is worth re-focusing to provide more constructive feedback. Following a precursory literature review which sets the scene of differing but often not-quite-understood statuses of the qualitative and quantitative paradigms, initial findings suggest that the RAE outputs submitted by these three business schools vary substantially in terms of indicators of prestige and features such as topic area, journal rankings and citations; indicators of resources and professional network such as number of different topics, authors and location of authors; and indicators of methodology and method. The analysis takes into account the requirements of the 2013 Research Excellence Framework (REF) in order to progress. In this way the results of the RAE may be used to assist in institutional preparations for the REF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]