Research Quality Framework (RQF) retrospective
Cancellation of the RQF
On 21 December 2007 Senator the Hon Kim Carr (Minister for
Innovation, Industry, Science and Research)
announced the cancellation
of the Research Quality Framework (RQF).
Senator Carr also announced the
government's commitment to 'a new streamlined,
internationally-recognised, research quality assurance process using
metrics or other agreed quality measures appropriate to each research
discipline'.
In February 2008, Senator Carr announced the
Excellence
in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative. It is expected that the Rudd
Government will soon announce a timeline and process for consulting with the
sector on the ERA.
UniSA staff will be alerted to developments made by the Government on their proposed approach to research quality assurance.
What was the RQF?
In 2006, the former Minister for Education, Science and Training, the Hon Julie Bishop MP, released the paper The Recommended RQF (PDF file, 488kb). When announcing the RQF endorsement by the then Australian Government, the Minister Bishop noted that the RQF was an important reform for Australian research as it would boost the production of high quality and impact research and would give Australian researchers greater capacity to compete on the international stage. She also noted the current lack of a comprehensive way to measure the quality and impact of research conducted in Australian universities or the benefits to the wider community, and suggested the RQF would enable international benchmarking and provide transparency about public investment in research.
RQF objective and assessments
The RQF's overall objective was to develop a broad assessment mechanism of research quality and impact that would:
- recognise and reward high quality and high impact research
- provide information to government and taxpayers about the results of public investment in research
- encourage research organisations to focus on the quality and impact of their research.
The RQF was to have separate assessments for quality and impact, based on a five point scale for each, by 13 (RFCD code-based) assessment panels. Research institutions were required to submit Evidence Portfolios for each research group. An Evidence Portfolio would comprise a context statement; the four best research outputs for each eligible researcher in the group; the full list of outputs for the group for the assessment period (01/01/2001-31/12/2006); and for impact assessment, a statement of claims, up to four case studies illustrating impact, and details of end-users who could act as referees.
Research quality
The RQF exercise was to assess the quality of the research group based on:
- ranked research outlets
- citation data
- citations per publication
- centile distribution of the research group's output
For more information on these quality metrics, go to Bibliometrics and qualitative indicators
Quality rating scores
The research group would have received one of the below quality rating scores:
| Rating | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 5 | Research that is world leading in its field or makes an equally exceptional contribution in an area of particular significance to Australia. |
| 4 | Research that meets world standards of excellence in its field or makes an equally excellent contribution in an area of particular significance to Australia. |
| 3 | Research that is recognised internationally as excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour but which nonetheless falls short of the highest standards of excellence. |
| 2 | Research that is recognised as methodologically sound in its field and of high originality, significance and rigour. |
| 1 | Research that is deemed to fall below the standard of recognised quality work. |
Research impact
Research impact was defined by the RQF Submission Specifications as 'the impact or use of original research outside the academic peer community' and refers to 'the extent to which research has led successfully to social, economic, environmental and/or cultural benefits for the wider community, or an element of the community'. For the RQF, impact assessment was to be based on an up to 10 page impact statement and up to four illustrative case studies.
Impact rating scores
The research group would have received one of the below impact rating scores:
| Rating | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| A | Adoption of the research has produced an outstanding social, economic, environmental and/or cultural benefit for the wider community, regionally within Australia, nationally or internationally |
| B | Adoption of the research has produced a significant social, economic environmental and/or cultural benefit for the wider community, regionally within Australia, nationally or internationally. |
| C | Research has been adopted to produce new policies, products, attitudes, behaviours and/or outlooks in the end user community. |
| D | Research has engaged with the end user community to address a social, economic, environmental and/or cultural issue regionally within Australia, nationally or internationally. |
| E | Research has had limited or no identifiable social, economic, environmental and/or cultural outcome, regionally within Australia, nationally or internationally. |