Research Assessment Exercise 1999 - Guidance Notes


This document consists of the Guidance Notes, a set of forms numbered Tables 1 to 3, and Appendices A to G.*

[* This document (in Rich Text Format), together with Tables 1 - 3 and Appendices F1 - F3 (which are in Excel format), can also be downloaded by clicking here.]


Each institution should issue this document to every member of its academic staff, and to every member of its administrative staff responsible for institutional governance or involved in research policy and support, in order that the principles, aims and methodology of the RAE are fully understood. Institutions may ask their staff members to obtain a copy of this document from the UGC Web.

(issued on 22 January 1999)

Table of Contents Para.
1 - 18
6 - 8
9 - 15
17 - 18
19 - 20
21 - 25
26 - 46
26 - 27
28 - 30
32 - 35
38 - 41
43 - 44
47 - 59
47 - 49
50 - 59
60 - 66


  1. In 1993, the University Grants Committee (UGC) began to move away from a historical-based model for the assessment of the public recurrent funding requirements of the UGC-funded institutions to a more performance-based funding model. Following detailed study aided by an expert consultant, the UGC adopted a zero-based model which relates the level of funding allocations both to the tasks that each institution is expected to accomplish during the funding period, and to the quality of its recent performance.

  2. In principle the funding of each institution is the sum of funding for its two principal activities, teaching ('T') and research ('R'), each carrying an implied overhead of administrative or support activity. It is the UGC's intention that public funds in support of research should be allocated preferentially to those institutions which demonstrate that they can use them well. There is therefore a need to assess research performance in some way so that it can be reflected in the funding level.

  3. The RAE is thus part of the UGC's performance-based funding assessment process. It aims to measure the output and quality of research of the UGC-funded institutions by cost centre as the basis for allocating some of the research portion of the institutional recurrent grant for the next triennium in a publicly accountable way.

  4. The first RAE was conducted in 1993, and the second RAE in 1996. The first RAE was essentially modelled on the UK system and was implemented with the help of external consultants. However, a quality threshold which was not overly stringent was used. The outcome of the exercise was a factor, expressed in terms of full-time equivalent active researchers (FTE-AR) by cost centre, applied as a multiplier to an assessed unit cost of research activity by discipline. The second RAE was adapted from the first RAE, but giving more recognition to the fact that Hong Kong was a smaller system locally -- external referees were also involved, in significant numbers, but they all functioned as full panel members. A conscious decision was taken to adopt a higher quality threshold. The UGC subsequently concluded that the results of the second RAE revealed that there had been an overall and significant improvement in both the range and quality of research work being carried out by colleagues in Hong Kong.

  5. In retrospect, the RAE has been effective as a means of -

    1. informing funding;

    2. symbolising public accountability; and

    3. inducing improvement in research by raising the quality threshold for assessment.

Background to RAE 1999

  1. Since the RAE is expected to remain an important measure for determining the distribution of a significant part of the 'R' portion of the institutional recurrent grants, planning for the next RAE needs to tie in with the funding cycle of the next triennium 2001-2004.

  2. The third RAE will be undertaken by the UGC in the autumn of 1999. Like the second RAE conducted in 1996, the purpose of the exercise is to assess the research output performance of the UGC-funded institutions by cost centre, to be used as one of the bases for allocating some of the research portion of the institutional recurrent grant for the triennium 2001-2004.

  3. The UGC again wishes to emphasize that the research assessment exercise does not imply an interest in research to the possible detriment of teaching quality. The Committee recognizes that both teaching and research are important and are inter-related elements in the development of higher education. Indeed, a much larger portion of the recurrent grants allocated to institutions is and should be attributed to teaching. Nevertheless, it is necessary for the Committee to adopt different approaches to assessing the funding requirements for teaching and research in view of the different nature of these activities.

Principles and Philosophy for RAE 1999

  1. The UGC considers that RAE 1999 should be conducted on basically similar lines to RAE 1996, albeit with improvements in several areas. The RAE will continue to rate cost centres, not individual staff members. It will determine 'research indices' for all cost centres in each UGC-funded institution which will be aggregated to obtain an overall research index for that institution. However, the term 'active researcher' will no longer be used, in order to stress that the focus is on cost centres and institutions rather than individuals.

  2. The results of the last two RAEs directly informed funding, in that they were factored into the determination of a significant part of the 'R' portion of institutional recurrent grants. The UGC notes that this may have unduly influenced institutions' commitment to research versusteaching, and therefore wishes to clarify the principles and philosophy for RAE 1999.

  3. The UGC considers that research is not an isolated activity; rather it should support and illuminate teaching and learning. Moreover, in recognition of the wider scope of research and scholarly/creative activity intended to be assessed, but evidently not, or only partially, assessed in previous RAEs, the UGC wishes to redefine 'research' as well as to enlarge the assessment to cover other forms of scholarship inherent in the process and/or outcome of research. The word 'research' should be read in this context in the remainder of this document.

  4. The aim in RAE 1999 will be to identify and measure, on the basis of outputs, the following kinds of scholarship :

    1. scholarship of discovery;
    2. scholarship of integration;
    3. scholarship of application; and
    4. scholarship of teaching.

    A brief definition of these four kinds of scholarship, adapted from the Carnegie Foundation's Special Report entitled 'Scholarship Reconsidered', 1990, is at Appendix A.

  1. Prior to the conduct of RAE 1999, each institution will be required to submit, on the basis of a self-assessment, a Research Strategy Statement to reflect its research philosophy, vision and priorities in relation to its role and mission and stage of development, and the distribution of research efforts in the four categories of scholarship. It should state the institution's research focus areas, if any, and explain why they are selected. It should also state the institution's existing strength and standard, and, using the RAE 1996 results as its benchmark, describe the changes expected in three years from now, and in the long run. A template of an Research Strategy Statement is at Appendix B. The declared research strategy will provide a context for viewing the research index of the institution as a whole (and of the cost centres; see paragraph 20) on completion of the RAE. It is expected that the distribution of the RAE submissions will be coherent with the statements at the institution and cost centre levels.

  2. The UGC-funded institutions' principal functions are to teach and, to varying degrees, to undertake research. In principle, the funding of each institution should be the sum of funding for the two principal activities, teaching ('T') and research ('R'). In respect of research, it should be recognized that for the purpose of research funding assessment, there are some research activities which should appropriately be funded by public funds administered by the UGC, and others which should not, in which case the institutions concerned should obtain the necessary funding from the appropriate sources or seek full-cost recovery including on-costs, where appropriate, from the clients.

  3. Although the third RAE will again look at individual records, the UGC wishes to stress that it is not intended to be an assessment of individuals' research performance. It will rather be an assessment of each institution's research performance by cost centre. The subject panels will only produce a total score for each cost centre. Even if the score(s) of an individual researcher or researchers can be inferred from the cost centre's final research index (especially in the case of very small cost centres), the institution concerned should not use the inferred information for internal evaluation of the performance of the researchers concerned, because staff appraisal must involve dimensions other than research, however widely defined. Even for research alone, methodologies that are appropriate for assessment in the aggregate for funding purposes may not be appropriate for the assessment of the performance of individuals for the purposes of personnel decisions.


  1. In the second RAE, all subject panels worked to the same threshold definition although they exercised their judgement with due regard for the nature and culture in different disciplines. While the formal definition of the threshold for RAE 1999 in terms of attaining excellence (see paragraph 51 below) will remain largely the same as in RAE 1996, given the rising standards both in Hong Kong and elsewhere, it is likely that this will, in practice, translate into higher standards than for the previous exercise.

General Scheme

  1. The general scheme of the third RAE will be to determine the research index of a cost centre, i.e. the percentage of full-time equivalent researchers in each cost centre whose research work is judged to have reached or surpassed the quality threshold. The index, p, is determined by the following formula:

    • p = 100% x A / T


      T = the total number of academic staff (in fte) in a cost centre who meet the criteria stated in paragraphs 21 and 22 regardless of the source of funding and whether they submit research output items for assessment;and

      A = the total number among these who are judged by the Panel to have reached or surpassed the quality threshold, including fractional counts.

  2. These Guidance Notes therefore explain in detail the way in which assessments will be made, the kind of information required and how it will be presented to the RAE panels for assessment. The following areas are covered by the Guidance Notes:

    1. the definition of cost centres (Section II);

    2. the convention for counting the total number of academic staff in each cost centre to arrive at the denominator T (Section III);

    3. the submission of data for each member of staff included (Section IV);

    4. the evaluation guidelines for the panels in its judgment of the submissions to arrive at the numerator A (Section V); and

    5. the handling of the results (Section VI).


  1. To bring departments onto a common classification system, institutions are asked to map their departments and research units onto a common list of 'Cost Centres' according to the list in Appendix C. The mapping should be the same as that used in the UGC's Common Data Collection Format (CDCF) returns. The Cost Centre forms the basis of the data we are now seeking.

  2. For each cost centre, an appropriate representative from the institution, e.g. Department Head or Faculty Dean, should submit a one-page summary in the form of Table 1, giving a factual description of the research activities, including the distribution of research work in the four categories of scholarship (paragraph 12 above), in the cost centre. The descriptive summary will not be assessed, but will provide a context for the panel's deliberations.


  1. All academic staff who meet both of the following criteria will be counted in the total T, and may submit information to be assessed:

    1. they are holding a paid appointment at the institution concerned for a continuous period of twenty-four months or more covering the specified census date (see paragraph 25), whether or not the period of continuous appointment is principally before or after the census date; and

    2. they do not hold concurrent paid positions at other institutions.

  2. For this purpose, academic staff include staff grades of 'Professor' to 'Assistant Lecturer' plus 'Senior Research Staff'. These correspond to Staff Categories 'A' to 'I' and 'M' as defined (see Appendix D) for the purposes of the Common Data Collection Format (CDCF).

  3. Institutions are required to submit in the form of Table 2 the list of all academic staff who meet the above criteria regardless of whether they intend to submit items for assessment. The institutions' Table 2 returns will need to be submitted to the UGC Secretariat by 15 March 1999.

  4. Part-time staff, other than those remunerated on an hourly rate, should also be included in Table 2 and will count towards 'T' in a fractional basis. As with full-time staff, they may submit items of research output to be assessed. Each staff member reported, whether he/she is full-time staff or part-time staff, will be counted in full-time equivalent terms against the cost centres to which he/she contributes and will be expressed as a fraction (employment fraction) in the cost centre. To illustrate, a full-time staff member counted against one single cost centre will be expressed as a whole unit '1'. A part-time staff member equivalent to 0.5 full time staff member contributing solely and equally to cost centres A and B will be expressed as 0.25 in cost centre A and 0.25 in cost centre B.

  5. The census date for the reported data is 31 December 1998, which is the middle of the academic year 1998-99.


Who to submit

  1. Institutions are invited to submit in respect of every member ofstaff as listed in Table 2 who the institution feels has output that canbe assessed. Such submission should be made in accordance with Table 3 and should reach the UGC Secretariat by 30 April 1999.

  2. The UGC recognizes that research, even as more widely defined in this exercise, only represents part of an institution's activities, and understands that there may be valid reasons why some valuable and respected members of staff may not, for the period in question, contribute to the institution's research index. For example, some staff could be heavily involved in course development, or in institutional administration. Therefore each institution is free to decide, in consultation with the individual, not to make a submission, and no stigma should be attached to any individual in respect of whom such a decision is taken.

What to submit

  1. The material that the institution is invited to submit in respect of each eligible staff member will be :

    1. up to five (see paragraph 37) best research output items, as defined in paragraphs 32 to 35 below, within the period of assessment; and

    2. if considered appropriate, a separate submission of one exceptional research output item which does not fall within the assessment period.

  2. The UGC expects the work submitted by each cost centre to show a reasonable distribution given the nature of the subject, and the role and mission of the institution. The spread of submissions across the four categories of scholarship may provide a basis for the UGC to consider the research performance of an institution against its role and mission. However, scoring will be made without regard to the category of the items submitted.

  3. It is suggested that each cost centre convene a meeting of staff who are considering making a submission to discuss the four categories of scholarship in relation to the centre's role and mission (the meeting may also be used to help coordinate within-cost centre co-authorship as discussed in paragraphs 38 - 41).

Assessment period

  1. For the purpose of paragraph 28 above, the assessment period will be the four-year period from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1998.

Definition of output

  1. All output items submitted for assessment must meet all of the following criteria:-

    1. the output contains an element of innovation;

    2. the output and the process involved contribute to scholarship;

    3. the output is publicly accessible; and

    4. the output is of interest to peers and is generalizable.

    Provided that all the above criteria are fully met, it does not matter whether the research activities leading to the output items submitted for assessment are funded by the UGC.

  2. The following are considered to be items falling within category (a) in paragraph 28 above :

    1. any publication, patent, artifact, etc., provided it was -

      1. published or made publicly available in other form within the assessment period; or

      2. not yet published, but officially accepted for publication (without need for further amendments of any kind) in that period; in this case, a letter of acceptance will need to be attached; or

    2. other output that may or may not be in publishable form, e.g. drama, concert performance, video tape, computer software programme, buildings, or any creative work that can be evaluated for merit and an assessment obtained (RAE panels to decide on the basis of the criteria in (a) above, see also paragraphs 12, 28 and 44).

  3. On the other hand, proprietary research that does not result in output that is accessible to the public and the profession is not accepted as an output for this purpose.

  4. For the avoidance of doubt, the UGC wishes to stress that output items need not be restricted to papers in journals, and all output items will be assessed without regard to the venue or language of publication.

New Researchers

  1. New researchers, including senior professionals who have just joined academia, present a special case, since they may not have had time to produce significant or publishable outputs according to the RAE definition. Therefore, all staff who first took up an academic appointment (anywhere) only within the last three years i.e. on or after 1 January 1996, will be given special consideration by the RAE panels. Apart from the kind of output defined at paragraphs 33 and 42, doctoral dissertation research may be included by these new appointees in the lists of research outputs for assessment.

Quality criterion

  1. Although a maximum of five output items can be submitted, individual staff may wish to submit fewer items, even only one item. A researcher can be judged to meet the quality threshold on the basis of one single item of high quality. The UGC wishes to emphasize that the focus of the RAE is not on quantity, but on the quality of output. It is believed that in the majority of cases, a clear decision should be able to be made on the basis of three items.


  1. Research output items produced under co-authorship are also accepted. In assessing such co-authored items, the individuals concerned will be regarded as proxies for the cost centre, as the RAE is to evaluate the cost centre, not individuals.

  2. Thus, to allow the RAE panel to form a view as to the extent of the cost centre's involvement in the work, the staff member submitting the item for assessment should list all the authors when completing Table 3 and underline those who belong to the cost centre. The RAE panel will then have a basis to assess (apart from the quality of the item in question) whether the co-authored involved have made a significant and substantial intellectual contribution to that item.

  3. So long as the panel is satisfied that the cost centre as a whole has made a significant and substantial intellectual contribution, there will be no discount or pro-rating. It is emphasized that the proportion of co-authors from within the cost centre will not be used as a multiplier in rating the item. Thus there should be no discouragement for genuine collaborations with each party contributing to the research output.

  4. In the case of multiple submissions (i.e. co-authored item submitted more than once) from the same cost centre of an institution, the staff members submitting that item for assessment should provide additional information by filling in the declaration form at Appendix E1. There is no need to complete this form if the item is submitted only once. To avoid double-counting within a cost centre, the coordinator of submissions from each cost centre should draw multiple submission(s) from within the same cost centre to the RAE panel's attention by completing Appendix E2.

Exceptional item

  1. As indicated at paragraph 28(b) above, individual staff may submit an exceptional item, i.e., one appearing outside the four-year period 1995-1998, if they consider it to be appropriate. This is to cater for situations where output items within the definition of paragraph 28 could not be produced during the assessment period. This provision is based on the understanding that works of great impact may take more than three years to complete and that they therefore tend to be infrequent.

Data required

  1. Each item falling within category (a) of paragraph 28 above should be labeled as D, I, A, T according to the four categories of scholarship of discovery, integration, application and teaching as set out in paragraph 12 above. The information required to be submitted in respect of each output item is one copy of the full set of the output item to be assessed (all such copies will be returned after the assessment exercise); and in addition 5 copies of the following:

    1. in the case of a journal paper, the first page and the abstract pages;

    2. in the case of a book, a short description of the book, the title page and table of contents and, where appropriate, a book review;

    3. in the case of a co-authored item or multiple submissions, additional information/indication in accordance with paragraphs 39 and 41; and

    4. in other cases, sufficient information for the item to be assessed.

  2. For a submission in category (b) of paragraph 28 above, a description limited to one A4 page should be provided.

Sample submission

  1. A sample submission is shown in Appendices F1 to F3.

Further information

  1. If an RAE panel requires any further information, it will approach the institution(s) concerned through the UGC Secretariat for assistance.



  1. Since the RAE covers the whole range of cost centres, with different types of academic research outputs, the cost centres are grouped and placed under separate panels for assessment. The groupings of the cost centres and the list of RAE panels are given in Appendix G.

  2. Each panel will consist of local and overseas academics in the relevant disciplines and, where appropriate, also professionally qualified people from business, government and the arts. They will be appointed on an ad personam basis and will be specifically required not to represent the interests of their own institutions. The standards will thus ultimately be set and the judgments made by academic peers and not by the UGC.

  3. To ensure that non-traditional output items (i.e. those labeled I, A and T) receive adequate attention, a sub-group with suitable membership (including members drawn from outside academia, where appropriate) will be constituted under each panel to evaluate such items separately, and to make recommendations regarding their assessment to the full panel.

Threshold standard

  1. In its Review Report "Higher Education in Hong Kong", the UGC perceived two objectives for research in UGC-funded institutions:

    1. to participate in the global endeavour to extend human understanding and thus to keep the knowledge base in the institutions current; and

    2. to increase the proportion of work which is linked with the interest of the community and to carry out more of it with local partners, both active and passive.

  2. In view of the emphasis on quality, the operational definition of the threshold standard in the third RAE will be strict. The definition is:

    • "Quality of output equates to an attainable level of excellence appropriate to the discipline in Hong Kong, and showing some evidence of international excellence."

    Although the formal definition of the quality threshold largely remains the same, the UGC believes that the actual threshold will have risen in step with the advancement of research in the local and international environment since RAE 1996 for which the cut-off date for research output was 31 December 1995.

  3. Once the quality threshold (in terms of intellectual content and rigour in process and methodology) has been met, the panels will be expected to give special recognition to those items which have societal relevance, which have achieved or are likely to achieve symbiosis with industry, commerce and government, and/or with local culture and society.

  4. The UGC will strive to ensure broad comparability across disciplines, but it will be up to each panel, with its subject expertise and knowledge of local circumstances, to translate this general definition into more precise benchmarks appropriate to each discipline or group of disciplines. The panels will also be expected to interpret 'international excellence' with due regard to the nature of those subjects that may, by their nature, necessarily have a strong local or regional focus. In the case of publications or other outputs of a local nature, the panel will need to assess whether the item represents a contribution to the work of the international research community in terms of its intellectual content, as well as rigour of process and methodology.

  5. To minimize any possible divergence in judgement, all RAE subject panels will be asked to make reference to the following amplifications to the definition in paragraph 51 above:


    Reference is made to 'attainable' levels, not 'attained' levels. Thus, for a hypothetical subject in which reasonable norms common elsewhere are much higher than the standard shown by all academics in Hong Kong, then it is the former ('attainable') rather than the latter ('attained') which should prevail as the benchmark.

    International excellence

    This should not be equated with output items published outside of Hong Kong or the region; rather it is intended that evaluation should be made with reference to the best international norms in the mainstream of that discipline or sub-discipline. It is possible that in some particular disciplines, such norms are set by output items published in Hong Kong or the region.

    International vs local

    A distinction should be made between

    1. a publication that is local because it addresses local issues, and
    2. a publication that is local because it does not meet the standards of rigour and scholarship expected internationally in the mainstream of that discipline. In the former case, the item will not be discounted; in the latter, it will be.

  1. The RAE panels will be expected to view the submission as a whole, and not score each item individually. In particular, panels will be asked not to define thresholds for each item or give fractions on n/5. Although each eligible staff member may submit up to 5 items (plus possibly an exceptional item) for assessment, each RAE panel will need to strive to make an evaluation on the basis of what it regards as the best 3. Thus, for those which do not quite reach the threshold on the basis of these 3 (or 4 if an exceptional item is submitted) items, RAE panels need not consider the 4th, 5th and/or the 6th item. It is believed that in the majority of cases, a clear decision should be able to be made on the basis of 3 items. Moreover the quality of each item will be judged on its own merits and not solely in terms of its category (e.g. a journal paper is not necessarily of higher or lower merit than a book chapter, nor is a refereed article necessarily of higher or lower merit than an unrefereed one), venue or language of publication. Individual RAE panels will attempt to decide their own thresholds, calibrate with one and other, and consider common working procedures as soon as they are formed.

  2. It is expected that the panels will consider, first of all, a binary cut, i.e. whether the output of each individual concerned does or does not meet the threshold standard as defined.

  3. However, it is recognized that in some cases it may prove difficult to adopt a binary cut, in which case it will be up to individual panels to consider whether a fractional score (i.e. lower than 1) should be assigned. In assigning fractional scores, RAE panels will be expected to give simple gradings. The panels will be instructed not to adopt a mechanical approach during the assessment.

  4. Output items will be judged on their own merits and will not be judged simply on their category or venues of publication. In many disciplines, an output item appearing in a quality venue, e.g. an article in a prestigious journal, or a musical composition performed in an internationally acclaimed concert hall, may be presumed to be of high quality, and there is no need for the panel to study the item in detail. However, panels should recognize that there could be quality output items in venues that may not be prestigious. In these cases, and in any case when in doubt, the panel (or designated member(s)) will study the item in question and not judge it automatically according to the venue.

  5. The RAE panels will have more overseas and independent referees, including professional members as appropriate. All panels will receive training before the actual assessment process begins, and will be invited to state in writing, for dissemination afterwards, the standards and criteria they have used, and a description of how these have been applied. The RAE Guidance Notes for Panels, when finalised, will be mounted on the UGC web for public information.


  1. As indicated earlier, the primary purpose of the RAE is to assess the research output performance of UGC-funded institutions by cost centre; it is not intended to evaluate the performance of individual staff within the institutions. The subject panels will only produce total scores for each cost centre in each institution.

  2. In RAE 1993 and RAE 1996, the results of each institution were forwarded to the institution concerned only and were not made known to other institutions or the public. This was to avoid misinterpretation by casual comparison of the results of different institutions since each institution has its distinct specified role and mission, and different institutions are at different stages of development. Nevertheless, to give a rough indication of the level of attainment of a particular cost centre across the whole sector, in RAE 1996 each institution was also given, alongside the research index for each of its cost centres, an average and median research index across the whole sector.

  3. RAE 1999 is again intended ultimately to assess the research output of a cost centre, not individuals, so it will not generate individually identifiable scores. Only the total score of a cost centre will be produced. The results of the RAE of individual institutions will be conveyed only to the Head of the institution concerned, together with the sector-wide average and median indices for the relevant cost centres. However, the sector-wide average and median indices for the relevant cost centres will not be conveyed in respect of cost centres which are only found in fewer than three institutions.

  4. The UGC fully recognizes that different institutions have different missions, discipline profiles and histories and the purpose of the exercise is neither to identify and compare the number of 'star' researchers nor to measure the research output with a view to giving a grading to institutions for research performance.

  5. The results will help the UGC form a judgement, in the light of other relevant factors, regarding the distribution of part of the research portion of the recurrent grants for institutions in the next triennium 2001-2004.

Timetable for the submission of data for RAE 1999

  1. To summarize, institutions are requested to submit the following Tables and supporting documents in accordance with the dates shown below:

    Date Table
    15 March 1999 - Table 2 for each cost centre
    30 April 1999 Research Strategy Statement
    - Table 1 for each cost centre
    - Table 3 for each individual cited in Table 2 who wishes to make a submission

Form of submission

  1. The form of submission of Tables 1 to 3 and any other data submitted in accordance with these Guidance Notes should be forwarded by way of hard copies to the UGC Secretariat. Table 2 should be submitted with a soft copy. In view of the large volume of written submissions involved, institutions are requested to ensure that the submissions are complete, clearly labeled, and hard copies are of good, readable quality. The Secretariat may issue more operational guidelines with regard to the physical handling of RAE submissions.

UGC Secretariat
22 January 1999

Appendix A

Scholarship as defined by the Carnegie Foundation*

The Carnegie Foundation considers that there is a more inclusive view of what it means to be a scholar -- a recognition that knowledge is acquired through research, synthesis, practice, and teaching. While scholarship means engaging in original research, scholarship now has a broader and capacious meaning. Beyond the age-old "teaching Vs research" debate, there are four separate, yet overlapping functions: They are the scholarship of discovery; the scholarship of integration; the scholarship of application; and the scholarship of teaching.

Scholarship of Discovery

The scholarship of discovery, at its best, contributes not only to the stock of human knowledge but also to the intellectual climate of an institution. It is a scholarly investigation, closest to what is meant when academics speak of "research", that confronts the unknown and creates new knowledge. Not just the outcomes, but the process, and especially the passion, give meaning to the effort.

Scholarship of Integration

It is a serious, disciplined work that seeks to interpret, draw together and bring new insight to bear on original research. The scholarship is closely related to discovery. Such work is increasingly important as traditional disciplinary categories prove confining, forcing new topologies of knowledge. This scholarship also means interpretation, fitting one's own research -- or the research of others -- into larger intellectual patterns. A variety of scholarly trends -- interdisciplinary, interpretive, integrative, are examples of scholarship of integration.

Scholarship of Application

It is a dynamic process of creating new intellectual understandings arising out of theory and practice. The term itself may be misleading if it suggests that knowledge is first "discovered" and then "applied". The process is in fact more dynamic; new intellectual understanding can arise out of vital interaction between theory and practice, and one renews the other.

Scholarship of Teaching

It is a process that transforms and extends knowledge while transmitting an intelligible account of knowledge to the learners.

Appendix B

Institution's Research Strategy Statement

Institution's existing research policy

In view of my institution's mission statement attached (institution to provide from UGC documents), and stage of development of my institution, the current research policy of my institution is as follows (maximum length one page):

Research Funding Sources

My institution derives funding for research from the following sources, and the breakdown by funding source as a percentage total of overall funding is as follows:

Distribution of research activities among the four categories of scholarship

Based on my institution's research strategy, the distribution on research activities among the four categories of scholarship is as follows:

Changes Expected

In RAE 1996, my institution's scores by cost centre were:

In the medium term, the institution expected the following changes in research priorities:

In the long run, the institution hopes to achieve:

Head/Deputy Head of Institution


Appendix C


for academic departments etc.

1 clinical medicine 30 surveying, land
2 clinical dentistry 31 surveying, other
3 clinical vet studies 32 mathematics & statistics
4 nursing 33 comp studies/science
(incl. IT)
5 other para-medical 34 law
6 biological sciences 35 accountancy
7 pre-clinical studies 36 public administration
8 psychology 37 business studies
(incl. management)
9 other biological sciences 38 catering
10 agriculture 39 hotel management
11 physics & astronomy 40 economics
12 chemistry 41 geography
13 materials science 42 social work
14 earth sciences
(incl. oceanography, meteorology)
43 other social sciences
15 other physical sciences 44 Chinese language & literature
16 mechanical engineering 45 English language & literature
17 electrical engineering 46 Japanese language & literature
18 electronic engineering 47 other languages
19 chemical engineering 48 translation
20 production engineering
(incl. manufacturing & industrial engineering)
49 communication & media studies
21 marine engineering 50 history
22 biotechnology 51 other arts/humanities
23 materials technology 52 art
24 textile technology 53 performing arts
25 civil engineering 54 music
26 other technologies
(incl. nautical studies)
55 other creative arts
27 architecture 56 design
28 building technology 57 education
29 planning 58 physical education

Appendix D

STAFF GRADES, Modes and Funding Sources

Academic Grades
Academic, Senior Academic, Junior
A. Professor
B. Reader
C. Senior Lecturer (U)
D. Principal Lecturer (P), senior
E. Principal Lecturer (P), junior
F. Senior Lecturer (P)
G. Lecturer (U)
H. Lecturer (P)
I. Assistant Lecturer
J. Instructor
K. Demonstrator/Tutor/Teaching Assistant
L. Other, including language assistant, field work supervisor, etc.
Research Staff (Staff who spend essentially all their time on research)
M. Senior Research staff ("leaders", usually Post Doctoral) N. Junior Research staff ("followers"; usually Graduate)
Non-Academic Grades
O. Admin, Senior
Q. Technical, Senior
P. Admin, Junior (including secretarial)
R. Technical, Junior
S. other, including "Mod 1"
Staff Mode Source of Staff salary funding
F: Full-time
P: Part-time
W: wholly from General Funds (WfGF)
P: partly from General Funds (PfGF)
N: not from General Funds (NfGF)

Appendix E1

Additional Information on Co-authored Research Output Item

(no need to complete unless the research output item has been submitted by more than one staff member from within the same cost centre; in completing Table 3 on the research output items for assessment, the submitting staff member should underline the names of co-authors from within the same cost centre)

    Ref. No. of the submitted item: ________________________

    (see note h of Table 3)

    Description of the Research Output Item

    Total Number and names of co-authors listed in the research output items

    Number and names of Co-authors within the cost centre who have submitted the item for assessment

    Nature of involvement by the staff member submitting the item for assessment

    An estimate by the staff member submitting the item on the extent of contribution to the successful publication of the research output item:

    Other remarks, if any

    (name of staff member claiming credit
    from the item under assessment)

Appendix E2

Record of co-authored research output items which have been
submitted for assessment by more than one staff member from within the same cost centre
(one form per Cost Centre)


    Cost Centre:

    Total number of staff members in Cost Centre eligible for assessment

    in Fte:
    in head-count:

Total number of items submitted for assessment:

The following items have been found to have been submitted for assessment by more than one staff member from within the cost centre:

Item Description & References Names of staff members who have submitted the same item for assessment under the same cost centre*

(add rows if necessary)

* Staff members listed above should each complete and attach a form (Appendix E1) to his/her Table 3 submission explaining the nature and degree of his/her contribution to the research output item in question.

Cost Centre Co-ordinator

Appendix G

RAE Panels in RAE 1999

Cost Centre Panel Title Panel No.
6 biological sciences Biology 1
9 other biological sciences    
10 agriculture    
22 biotechnology    
1 clinical medicine Health Sciences 2
2 clinical dentistry    
3 clinical vet studies    
4 nursing    
5 other para-medical    
7 pre-clinical studies    
11 physics & astronomy Physical Sciences 3
12 chemistry    
13 materials science    
14 earth sciences
(incl. oceanography, meteorology)
15 other physical sciences    
32 mathematics & statistics    
17 electrical engineering Electrical & Electronic 4
18 electronic engineering Engineering  
33 comp studies/science
(incl. IT)
Computer Science /Information Technology 5
16 mechanical engineering Engineering 6
19 chemical engineering    
20 production engineering
(incl. manufacturing & industrial engineering)
21 marine engineering    
23 materials technology    
24 textile technology    
26 other technologies
(incl. nautical studies)
25 civil engineering Built Environment 7
27 architecture    
28 building technology    
29 planning    
30 surveying, land    
31 surveying, other    
34 law Law 8
35 accountancy Business Studies & Economics 9
37 business studies
(incl. management)
38 catering    
39 hotel management    
40 economics    

Appendix G (cont'd)

Cost Centre Panel Title Panel No.
8 psychology Social Sciences & Education 10
36 public administration    
41 geography    
42 social work    
43 other social sciences    
49 communication & media studies    
57 education    
58 physical education    
44 Chinese language & literature Humanities 11
45 English language & literature    
46 Japanese language & literature    
47 other languages    
48 translation    
50 history    
51 other arts/humanities    
52 art Creative Arts, Performing Arts & Design 12
53 performing arts    
54 music    
55 other creative arts    
56 design