英調查發現 研究經費集中撥給精英大學恐是不智之舉
國科會 國際科技合作 簡訊網
原始文件連結
作者：駐英科技組 現職：駐英科技組
文章來源：Times Higher Education, 15-21 Jan., 2009, No. 1879
發佈時間：98.02.26
英國華威大學經濟學家及教授 Andrew Oswald 在近期調查報告中建議，未來研究經費應廣泛地分撥給各大學，避免集中於少數傳統精英大學之上。這份分析報告與最近英國高等教育評鑑（Research Assessment Exercise, RAE）的調查結果不謀而合，發現出產「世界級」研究並非少數以研究知名的精英大學之專利。
這份調查報告以經濟學學科領域為對象，分析 2001 到 2008 年間世界各大學所發表的經濟學研究報告，歸納出 450 篇得列「世界等級」之報告，這幾篇報告不僅曾先後發表於二十二份世界頂尖期刊雜誌，也是被引用率最高的報告。世界級報告中 43 篇來自英國，約佔總數 10%，當中 12篇來自倫敦政經學院（London School of Economics and Political Science），11篇來自牛津大學，6 篇來自華威大學，令人驚訝的是，將近四分之一的比例（另外 18 篇）則是來自「非傳統精英」大學，包括約克大學（University of York）、卡地夫大學（University of Cardiff）、肯特大學（University of Kent）、蘭卡斯特大學（University of Lancaster）和萊斯特大學（University of Leicester）。
Oswald 教授對此調查結果感到意外但也說明，這結果顯現許多大學都有能力創造傑出研究，非凡的研究成果並非少數精英大學之專利，因此僅將研究補助集中撥給少數精英大學恐為不智之舉。再者，英格蘭高等教育獎助委員會（Higher Education Funding Council for England, Hefce）的原創目的本是贊助「任何」卓越研究，而非特定大學之研究。
繼英國高等教育評鑑（RAE）和此報告公佈的調查結果後，未來英格蘭高等教育獎助委員會如何分配研究補助仍待決議，但可預期的是，補助撥款方式將直接受到連帶影響，預計資金會更廣泛地分撥給各大學，以涵蓋成就傑出之「非傳統精英」大學。換言之，羅素集團(英國 20 所研究型大學所組成)過去較多的補助難免因此受到刪減。
Funding concentrated on elite might be a mistake
A report conducted by Andrew Oswald, an economist and professor of the University of Warwick, suggested that future research funding should be spread more thinly and broadly across a wide range of universities, rather than concentrating on a small group of traditional research elite. This report echoed the RAE's (Research Assessment Exercise) findings that world-leading research is not exclusively produced by some small elite of large research universities.
Looking specifically into economics discipline, the report analysed research papers produced in the world between 2001 to 2008 and 450 papers were identified as ‘truly world-leading’, the most highly cited articles published in 22 of the world’s top journals. Among these papers, 43 were from the UK, amounting to about 10 per cent of the total. While many of these UK world-leading papers were produced by top half-dozen universities in the country, with 12 from the London School of Economics and Political Science, 11 from the universities of Oxford and 6 from Warwick, a surprising quarter (the other 18) however were contributed by universities of York, Cardiff, Kent, Lancaster, Leicester and Sheffield, which are not traditionally considered to be among the top rank.
Taken by surprise, Professor Oswald said that the result suggests outstanding work comes from a wide range of sources and therefore, it appears unreasonable if funding is narrowly concentrated on a small number of universities. After all, the original promise of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) is to fund excellence wherever it is found, rather than excellence in specific institutions.
How Hefce would allocate funding following the RAE’s result, which is echoed by Professor Oswald’s, is yet to be determined. Nevertheless, some direct influence on the elite universities is expected. It is predicted that funding will be dispersed more thinly and broadly to cover a bigger group of universities, including those not considered to be top but producing extraordinary work. In other words, the elite, such as Russell Group, will lose funding inevitably.
