- use metrics to allocate research funds, those metrics have to come from somewhere. Therefore, it might be argued, the demise of the RAE makes the existing peer review process an indispensable part of the wider research funding system because, in the absence of the RAE, there will be a lack of credible quality information.
- 33. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the high cost of the Research Councils system. The RAE has - on the Government 's own figures - provided information about research quality at department level for less than 5 per cent of the cost of Research Councils ' peer review. In one sense, this is unsurprising because the RAE is an instrument designed for that very purpose whereas the research council system produces the information as a by-product of activities which have a different - and more extensive - end in view. But the fact remains that the RAE (which the Government regards as poor value for money) has provided department-level assessments at a small fraction of the cost of the Research Councils ' peer review processes.
- 34. Furthermore, the RCUK proposals undermine the viability of research quality metrics based upon Research Councils ' funding data. This is because any funding-based quality metric must have three characteristics - it must be based on a sufficiently large number of funding decisions to provide reliable figures; it must be based upon funding competitions which are equally open to all irrespective of the field(s) of research in which they specialise and it must be based upon information about the quality assessment of proposals rather than just the funding decision. These conditions can only be met if there a large pool 14 of response-mode funding attracting a large number of credible applications all of which receive detailed peer review. This will not exist within the research councils system under these proposals: there will be less response mode funding and holders of consolidated 'mega - grants' may not be eligible for it; applications will be reduced by quotas and those that are received will in many cases be outlines which receive only a 'light touch' peer review.

## A strategy for distinctiveness

- 35. If the Research Councils elected to focus upon distinctiveness - which would be far preferable in the context of a viable dual support system, and in their own long-term interests - what would they do?
- 36. They could attempt to present themselves as the researchers' champion offering more response mode funding. It is, though, very difficult to see the Government supporting a rebalancing of public funding away from its own priorities towards those of researchers. Furthermore, there is no real evidence that universities do a bad job of supporting researcher-driven research where they have spare funds to do so and it is therefore hard to argue against the notion that the Funding Councils are the most efficient funders of researcher- driven research. (In the light of current proposals for a replacement for the RAE a qualifier is required here: the Funding Councils can play this role only if they fund on the basis of output quality rather than funding data. If they simply reflect the