Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out



									DRAFT as at 16/07/05

UOA 52, French
This statement should be read alongside the statement for main panel M and the generic statement.

Absences of chair and declaration of interests from members
1. The sub-panel has appointed a deputy chair to act in the event of a planned or unforeseen short-term absence of the sub-panel chair. When the chair is absent by reason of her declared interests, the deputy chair will not only conduct the meeting but will also liaise with the sub-panel secretary in the drafting of any relevant minutes or notes and take such follow-up action as may be required. In other circumstances, decisions and recommendations made during the chair‟s absence will be discussed with her before being ratified. 2. The sub-panel will refer to the RAE team‟s register of members‟ declarations of major interests. Sub-panel members will withdraw from the discussion of any submission in which they have declared a current or recent major interest. The formal note of the discussion provided by the sub-panel secretary and agreed with the members present will be the only part of the discussion to which they are party. 3. The sub-panel will also keep a register of minor conflicts of interest. (The register will be compiled at the start of the assessment phase.) In some instances, the sub-panel may decide that a sub-panel member should not take the lead in assessing certain outputs or submissions, and if the member has several minor interests relating to one submission, they may be treated as amounting to a major interest.

UOA descriptor and boundaries
4. The sub-panel will take a broad view of what constitutes French Studies, and will include the study of French and Francophone Literature and Thought for all periods from the medieval to the present day; Medieval and Modern Occitan; Cultural Studies; Theatre Studies; Film and Media Studies; Language Studies; Pedagogic Research; Political, Social and Historical Studies; Postcolonial Studies; Gender Studies; Philosophy and Critical Theory; Comparative Literature; and Literature in Relation to the Other Arts. 5. Where work submitted either spans the boundary between this Unit of Assessment and another (or others), or falls outside the range of expertise of sub-panel members, other sub-panels and/or specialist advisers will be consulted, as appropriate. The subpanel will ensure specialist advisers are sought to read outputs in some sub-disciplines of linguistics, as appropriate. 6. The sub-panel welcomes the submission of interdisciplinary research and it is expected that the sub-panel will contain sufficient expertise to consider a significant proportion of such work. In cases where the sub-panel considers that additional expertise is required to enable it to assess outputs, or where the submitting HEI has requested cross-referral, the items in question will be referred to the relevant sub-panel(s). The


DRAFT as at 16/07/05

responsibility for recommending a quality level for each output will rest with the sub-panel to which the HEI has directed its submission.

Research staff and staffing policy
7. The outputs of staff in categories A and C will be assessed according to the same criteria. HEIs should, in the case of category C staff, demonstrate the sustained commitment of these staff to the submitting unit. Examples of such commitment might include: co-authorship with category A staff, co-directorship of externally funded research grants, supervision of research students, participation in graduate training programmes, etc. Only if the sub-panel is satisfied as to the close involvement of category C staff in the research activity of the department or school will data about them in the submission, including their outputs, be assessed. 8. The contribution made by staff in categories B and D to the research environment should be described, and indicators of esteem that relate to them should be listed. The sub-panel will use this information in reaching its judgement on these components of the quality profile. HEIs should comment on the way in which the departure of staff in categories B and D has affected the strength, coherence and research culture of the submitting unit at the census date. 9. HEIs should describe any arrangements which are in place for developing the research of early-career researchers and for integrating them into a wider, supportive research culture. The sub-panel will give due credit to units which have sought to encourage less experienced researchers. 10. The contribution of early-career researchers and researchers who have been inactive for prolonged periods will be considered in accordance with equal opportunities principles (see paragraphs 35-39). Early-career researchers are defined as staff entering the academic profession during the assessment period. The output of these staff and their contribution to the research environment should be described and the indicators of esteem that relate to them should be listed. The periods of time when they have been research-active should be clearly defined. The sub-panel recognises that those new to a research career and those for whom special circumstances are identified might not have four outputs. The way in which the sub-panel will deal with cases where an individual submits fewer than four outputs is described in paragraph 38. There is no expectation of the full range of esteem indicators in the cases of early career researchers, part-time staff, staff who have taken career breaks and staff for whom special circumstances have been identified. 11. Staff who have not been included in previous submissions to the RAE but who have held academic posts prior to 2001 (e.g. outside the UK) will not be considered early-career researchers.

Research outputs
12. Four outputs are normally expected from each member of staff submitted. No individual may submit more than four outputs. In all cases the sub-panel expects the number of outputs listed by staff will be commensurate with the time they have had


DRAFT as at 16/07/05

available for research and the nature of posts they have held. Submitting units should describe in section RA5b of the submission any individual staff circumstances (e.g., sickness, maternity leave, part-time work, secondment) which have led to the submission of fewer than four outputs for any member of staff. The extent of allowance given for quantity of outputs will be dependent upon these circumstances (see paragraphs 35-39). 13. If a unit contains early-career researchers who have produced little or no published output in the assessment period, then the sub-panel will consider the evidence concerning the individuals‟ circumstances (presented in RA5b; see paragraphs 9-11 and 35-39) and evidence of an effective policy in the department or school for encouraging the research of new recruits. As a general rule early-career researchers appointed near the beginning of the assessment period will be expected to have produced more outputs than those appointed late in the assessment period. 14. All forms of output will be assessed according to the published criteria. Each cited output will contribute in equal measure to determining the overall quality profile of the submission. No relative weighting will be applied to different forms of output. 15. The principal forms of output that the sub-panel expects to assess are listed below. All categories include both printed and electronically published items and/or those produced in other media. No ranking or weighting should be inferred from the order in which the categories are listed. While acknowledging the value of the refereeing process, the sub-panel recognises that some research is published in journals or other outlets which do not use refereeing procedures. Each item will be assessed on its individual merits, according to the sub-panel‟s stated criteria, given below. 16. If an item submitted is in one of the categories that are asterisked, then the submitting unit should use the „Other relevant details‟ field of RA2 to provide a succinct account (in no more than 300 words) of the way in which the item meets the RAE definition of „research‟. a. b. c. Academic journal articles Bibliographies* Books - including: i. ii. co-authored works dictionaries*

iii. edited special issues of journals, or collections of essays, with substantial research input on the part of the editor* iv. v. d. scholarly editions single-authored works

Chapters in books - including: i. ii. iii. papers published in edited conference proceedings contributions to Festschriften essays in other collections


DRAFT as at 16/07/05

e. f. g.

Creative writing Databases and other electronic resources* Short works - including: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. contributions to encyclopaedias and dictionaries pamphlets critical surveys (états-présents, Forschungsberichte, etc.) published lectures review articles working papers


Teaching materials* - including: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) material other language-learning materials readers source books student guides textbooks Higher Education pedagogic research materials

i. j.

Translations* Other forms of output* - including : i. ii. iii. catalogues and contributions to major research databases recorded performances exhibitions (including virtual museums, etc)

17. Where co-authored and co-edited works have been cited, the nature and proportional extent of the contribution by each named researcher should be elucidated in the „Other relevant details‟ field on RA2. Where an individual has contributed more than one item to the same output, these items may be submitted separately or together. Dictionary entries or encyclopaedia articles may, likewise, be entered separately or as related groups. If the same co-authored work is cited in two or more different submissions, it will count as a full output on each occasion. Institutions are however discouraged from including a given co-authored work more than once within a single submission. In cases where it is felt necessary to do so, an appropriate statement justifying this decision should be included in the RA2 „Other relevant details‟ field associated with that output 18. Collections of articles by the same author will only be given credit in so far as they embody research first published within the assessment period, though the reworking of previous pieces put together with new ones to make a book will be treated as valid


DRAFT as at 16/07/05

research output for the purposes of assessment. The sub-panel will not be able to award a separate quality level to research which is substantially duplicated in two or more submitted outputs. Similarly, re-issues or translations into other languages of books or articles first published before the assessment period will only be considered eligible if they contain substantial revisions involving new research. Where a member of staff has submitted a book and constituent articles, the book will be assessed to the extent that it contains new material; HEIs may wish to provide information regarding the relationship between these outputs in the „Other relevant details‟ field on RA2.

Applied research
19. Submitting HEIs are advised to consult the typology for applied research at paragraph 34.

Creative Writing
20. Creative writing will be assessed in so far as it embodies „the invention and generation of ideas, images, performances where these lead to … new or substantially improved insights‟ („Definition of Research for the RAE‟, Guidance to Panels, RAE 01/2005). It must be in a finished, publicly accessible form. The sub-panel will consider creative writing in terms of the originality and significance of its contribution to the research domain. This might be found in, for example, innovations in literary form, or in matters of content, which contribute to research. Work in the performing arts must be accessible, for instance in audio or video form as appropriate. 21. The sub-panel will weight the research outputs as 75% of the overall quality profile.

Research environment
22. The description of the research environment should be divided into three sections: a) structure; b) staff and students; c) strategy. Mention may be made where relevant of the following factors. This is not however a checklist and it is not necessary to respond under every head. The sub-panel recognises that not all factors may be appropriate for all sizes of unit. In particular, it will not penalise small units by imposing on them a model of research organization and activity that can only be met, or can be much more easily met, by larger units.

a. The overall research profile of the unit, including details of the membership and scope of activity/achievement of any research groups/centres. b. Details of any interdisciplinary research activity, including details, where appropriate, of any institutional arrangements for promoting and supporting interdisciplinary/collaborative research and evidence of how this activity has enhanced the research culture. c. Information about the award of any competitive external and/or internal funding for research, including a commentary describing any practices which foster


DRAFT as at 16/07/05

a culture of bidding for external funding for research. In particular, mention should be made of any grants or research income not administered through an institution‟s own accounts and hence not eligible for inclusion under RA4. d. Information on any relationships with industry and commerce or other research users and on responses to public policy initiatives and objectives. e. Details of institutional structures, and arrangements for the allocation of resources, that contribute to the maintenance of the research infrastructure of the discipline (e.g. library and IT provision). f. Details of practices and activities which foster a thriving research culture (e.g. organisation of conferences and seminar series, editing of a major journal, acting as base for a major survey or reference work, etc.).

Staff and students
g. Staff development, and in particular arrangements for developing the research of early career researchers and integrating them into a wider, supportive research culture (e.g. via a mentoring system). The sub-panel will take a positive view of units which, within the census period, have recruited individuals at the beginning of their publishing careers and of those which have sought to encourage less experienced researchers. h. Support for staff research, e.g. sabbatical leave, travel grants, IT support.

i. The contribution of staff in category C to the overall research enterprise and the integration of staff in this category in the department (see also paragraph 7 above). j. The contribution of postdoctoral researchers and doctoral students to the research culture of the department. Reference may be made under this heading to outputs by individuals (including PhD students) who do not figure in RA2. k. The effects on departmental strength, coherence and research culture at the census date, caused by the departure of staff in categories B and D. Institutions may also wish to comment on the contribution made to research by staff not submitted in RA2. l. A commentary detailing the department‟s or school‟s strategy with regard to competitive external and/or internal funding for doctoral studentships. Departments should clearly explain the nature and extent of the competition for internal sources of funding. Departments should also provide information about the submission and completion rates of their doctoral candidates m. The existence and content of any postgraduate research student facilities and training programmes.

n. A statement should be provided about the main research objectives of the unit and the research activity that is planned over the next five calendar years


DRAFT as at 16/07/05

(2008-12 inclusive). The sub-panel‟s attention should be drawn to current research work that is not yet producing visible results. Where relevant, reference should be made to research plans described in RAE 2001. o. The sub-panel will look for clear evidence of a research culture and of the potential to develop future research. Clearly formulated plans and descriptions of current research programmes will be viewed more favourably than vague statements of intent. p. Details of other Units of Assessment to which related work has been submitted should be given and any perceived difficulties of fit between departmental structure and the RAE framework identified. q. Where a joint submission is made with another institution (or other institutions), a clear statement should be provided on the nature and extent of the collaboration. 23. The sub-panel will also take into account when evaluating research environment any evidence of the overall volume and variety of high-quality research outputs in excess of those cited in RA2. Brief summary details should be supplied. 24. The sub-panel will weight the research environment as 20% of the overall quality profile. In allocating a quality profile score to the research environment, the sub-panel will have discretion as to whether to assign a single overall score, as might be appropriate for example in assessing a very small unit, or whether to allocate separate scores for the three sub-heads of the environment description.

Research students and research studentships
25. The standard data analyses of research students and studentships provided by the RAE team, and also data requested by the sub-panel on submission and completion rates (paragraph 22l above), will be used to contribute to the sub-panel‟s view of the quality of the research environment. Due recognition will be given to research student recruitment and degrees awarded, as evidence of an active research culture and the fostering of future development. The award of externally funded research studentships will be taken as a positive indicator. Evidence that an institution is funding studentships to promote future research growth in a particular area will also be looked upon favourably, and the circumstances of any such awards should be clearly explained. 26. The sub-panel recognises that different institutions have different opportunities for developing postgraduate research and will not use the mere volume of activity in this area as an indicator of quality. 27. Institutions are advised to list any studentships awarded from competitive overseas sources, which may not have been recorded at institutional level and therefore might not appear in the standard data provided by the RAE team.

Research income
28. The standard data analyses of research income provided by the RAE team will also be used to contribute to the sub-panel‟s view of the quality of the research


DRAFT as at 16/07/05

environment. Acquisition of external research income will be regarded as a positive indicator. In particular, awards from such bodies as the AHRB/C, British Academy, and ESRC will be acknowledged as demonstrating a recognised level of achievement. The sub-panel will take into account evidence of the successful use of such funds in terms of outputs, specific enhancement of the department‟s or school‟s research environment, or benefit to the wider research community in the field or sub-field. However, the attraction of external research income will not be regarded as the primary criterion in the assessment of the quality of the research environment. 29. Institutions are advised to list any research income awarded from competitive overseas sources, which may not have been recorded at institutional level and therefore might not appear in the standard data provided by the RAE team.

Esteem indicators
30. HEIs should list indicators of peer esteem and national and international recognition relating to all categories of staff. Indicators which the sub-panel will regard highly include inter alia: a. evidence of significant recognition of one‟s work (e.g. substantial review articles or inclusion in anthologies) b. translation of one‟s work into foreign languages

c. academic honours, fellowships, and prizes (including election to learned societies) d. e. f. g. visiting professorships or lectureships invited participation in major conferences, especially overseas keynote lectures or addresses at plenary sessions of major conferences prominent public dissemination of research findings

h. editorial roles, e.g. editor or member of editorial board (for refereed journals or book series) i. refereeing work for publishers and journals

j. membership of research sponsor evaluation panels (e.g. AHRB/C, British Academy, ESRC) or refereeing research grant applications k. regular reviewing for named journal(s)

l. professional service to the subject community, e.g. serving as chair, officer, or committee member of a learned society or association m. external assessor for Chair appointments and departmental reviews in other HEIs n. o. participation in overseas research assessment activities external examining for research degrees


DRAFT as at 16/07/05

31. Esteem indicators should be linked to the names of the individuals to whom they apply, and the sub-panel will take into account the relative academic age of researchers in making its assessment. Indicators of esteem will normally require an individual to be active outside his/her home institution. Submissions should concentrate on the most significant indicators rather than seek to provide an exhaustive list. 32. Esteem indicators will count for 5% of the overall quality profile of a submission.

Applied research
33. The main types of applied and practice-based submissions expected for the units of assessment in main panel M are creative writing, performance of plays, and teaching materials. These will be assessed on their research content, rather than on the work per se. The sub-panel will primarily assess such work according to the extent to which it meets the quality level criteria of originality and significance. 34. All sub-panels within panel M have adopted the following typology of applied research: “Applied Research involves a process of systematic investigation within a specific context in order to solve an identified problem or meet a specific challenge in that context. It aims to create new or improved systems (of thought or production), artefacts, products, processes, materials, devices, or services for long-term economic, social and/or cultural benefit. It is informed by the intellectual infrastructure of Scholarly Research in the field; it applies and/or transfers enhanced knowledge, methods, tools and resources from Basic and Strategic research; it also contributes to scholarship in the field through systematic dissemination of the results. The outcomes of applied research cannot usually be directly applied to other contexts because of the specificity of the situation in which the research has been applied although the methods/tools evolved are often transferable.”

Individual staff circumstances
35. Submitting units should draw the attention of the sub-panel to any individual staff circumstances which have significantly affected an individual‟s contribution to the submission (e.g. periods of sick leave, career breaks or career change, maternity/paternity leave, recent entry into the academic profession, engagement on long term projects, etc.) not only in terms of the number of outputs submitted, but also, where appropriate, in relation to the research environment and esteem indicators. 36. In assessing submissions, the sub-panel will take account of the following circumstances, if fully explained in section RA5b of a submission: a. absence due to maternity/paternity/adoption leave

b. return to part-time work after maternity/paternity/adoption leave in the same assessment period


DRAFT as at 16/07/05

c. d. e. f. g.

part-time work disability, including temporary incapacity that lasts for at least 12 months entry into the profession as a young staff member during the census period entry into the profession as a mature staff member during the census period ill-health or injury

37. The sub-panel will also take into account other individual staff circumstances, which are not within the scope of equal opportunities legislation (e.g. secondment positions, career breaks, senior administrative/management positions etc.). Any such circumstances must be fully explained in section RA5b of a submission. The sub-panel will give due credit to submitting units that include researchers at every stage of their career and that give appropriate consideration to researchers to whom special circumstances of the sort identified in paragraph 36 apply. 38. Having considered information regarding individual staff circumstances provided in section RA5b of a submission, the sub-panel may decide to reduce the expected number of research outputs to a number consistent with the circumstances described. The number of outputs used in the sub-panel's calculation of the quality profile for the department will be adjusted accordingly. The sub-panel will however in no circumstances make any adjustments with respect to the assessment of the quality of a given output or outputs. 39. No consideration will be given to any circumstances affecting an individual which may be known to sub-panel members but which are not described in section RA5b.

Working methods
Quality descriptors
40. When assessing the quality of outputs, the sub-panel will apply the same criteria to all outputs, regardless of the form of output. The following criteria will be used as appropriate: a. Originality: an intellectual advance or an important and innovative contribution to understanding and knowledge. This may include substantive empirical findings, new interpretations or insights, development of new theoretical frameworks and conceptual models, and innovative methodologies. b. Significance: imaginative scope; importance of issues addressed; impact of implications for other researchers and users. c. Rigour: intellectual coherence, methodological precision and analytical power; accuracy and depth of scholarship; evidence of awareness of and appropriate engagement with other work in the field.

41. The sub-panel considers 4* quality research to be work which is world-leading because it is, or ought to be, an essential point of reference in its field or sub-field and makes a contribution of which every serious researcher in the field ought to be aware. It will display the highest attainable standards of originality, significance, and rigour.


DRAFT as at 16/07/05

42. The sub-panel considers 3* quality research to be work which is or ought to be a major point of reference in its field or sub-field and which makes a contribution of which most serious researchers in the field ought to be aware. It will be excellent with respect to the criteria of originality, significance, and rigour. 43. The sub-panel considers 2* quality research to be work which makes a substantial contribution to its field or sub-field and which is likely to inform subsequent work. It will display high standards of achievement with respect to the criteria of originality, significance, and rigour. 44. The sub-panel considers 1* quality research to be work which makes a contribution to its field or sub-field. It will display satisfactory standards of achievement with respect to the criteria of originality, significance, and rigour. 45. Note that the sub-panel‟s understanding of the terms „world-leading‟, „international‟ and „national‟ in the generic definitions of the quality levels (Guidance to Panels Annex D) relates to the actual, likely or deserved impact of the work on the community of researchers operating in the field or sub-field. It does not assume any necessary international exposure in terms of publication or reception, or any necessary research content in terms of topic or approach. 46. The assessment will be one of peer review based on professional judgement.

47. All sub-panel members will scrutinise each submission. Joint submissions will be considered in the same way as other submissions to the sub-panel. An integrated approach will be taken to the consideration of each submission, with due attention paid to all aspects. Each member of the sub-panel will be responsible for collating information for a certain number of submissions, for referring the items in RA2 to the relevant subpanel specialists and collating judgements from specialist advisers. Submissions will then be presented to the whole sub-panel for discussion. The sub-panel will consider each submission as a whole, reaching a collective judgement on each aspect of the quality profile (research outputs, research environment and esteem), for recommendation to the main panel before moving on to consider the next submission. The sub-panel will strive to reach decisions by consensus, but will resort to voting if necessary, with the chair having a casting vote, if a unanimous decision proves impossible. 48. The sub-panel will make a specialist assessment of all outputs submitted in RA2, including detailed reading of virtually all, subject to its being able to access the material and within the time available. Approximately 25% of outputs will be selected for second reading.


DRAFT as at 16/07/05

Joint submissions and collaborative research
49. Joint submissions will be considered in the same way as other submissions to the unit of assessment. However, submitting HEIs are asked to clarify in RA5 the nature and extent of the collaboration leading to the joint submission.

Additional information requested
50. Departments are asked to provide in RA5a information about the submission and completion rates of their doctoral candidates, and brief summary information about highquality research outputs in excess of those cited in RA2. The sub-panel will take account of this information in assessing the research environment (see paragraphs 22l and 23).


To top