Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1997, 26, 641–642

Guest editorial

disciplines (not just nursing) by insisting on theUNITED KINGDOM UNIVERSITIES’

submission of the majority of academic sta�.RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 1996:

There has been no protest from heads of departments ofCRITIQUE, COMMENT AND CONCERN

nursing. However, this is di�cult to imagine as the collec-tive wrath of these heads of department would have to beIn her analysis of the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise

(RAE) conducted in the United Kingdom universities, directed at the RAE panel for nursing, which includes sev-eral heads of departments. This would be unfair as theySmith (1994 p. 385) stated that ‘nursing had the dubious

distinction of being the lowest rated subject’. Nursing has are now bound by a code of silence on the ratings awardedto individual departments.dubiously distinguished itself again in the 1996 RAE, sit-

ting a full point on average below the next lowest rated Heads of departments could also turn upon one anotherand this outcome would inevitably lead to a grouping ofsubject area, the professions allied to medicine. The outly-

ing nature of nursing research, in RAE terms, cannot fail departments in ancient and established universities,where ratings tended to be better, questioning the place ofto be taken seriously by the nursing profession and to be

noticed outside it. Following the 1996 RAE doubt about the newly created university (former polytechnic) depart-ments in the exercise. Neither of the above outcomesthe place of nursing in the universities was immediately

raised in an editorial in the Times Higher Educational would be entirely satisfactory.Supplement of 20 December 1996, in which it was stated‘Nursing has come bottom of the pile by some distance,

Concernraising the whole question of the nature of nursingresearch’. Nevertheless, the outcome of the 1996 RAE has to be ques-

tioned by the nursing profession in the UK, and, despiteIn an e�ort to explain the previous low rating, Tierney(1994 p. 593) pointed to the ‘small, recently established’ the fact that answers will not be forthcoming from the

higher education funding bodies, certain specific ques-nature of many of the university nursing departmentswhich entered the 1992 RAE. Any illusion that we learned tions are worth asking. The leading question is not why

nursing gained such a poor overall rating but why so fewa collective lesson and were turning things around in termsof nursing research has been totally dispelled by the results of the leading nursing departments failed to score 4 or

above indicating that the research was of internationalof the 1996 RAE. Largely, the reasons for our failure toimprove, or even to close the gap with our nearest ‘com- standing. A cursory glance at the Journal of Advanced

Nursing, taking any issue in the months within the periodpetitor’ subject areas, remain the same in 1996 as they werein 1992. of assessment of the RAE, shows a plethora of publications

from individuals and collaborators in the established UKuniversity nursing departments and beyond. Other well-

Congratulationsestablished nursing research journals demonstrate a simi-lar picture. Many of these people are now bitterlyThe 5 rating for nursing research at King’s College

(University of London) has to be acknowledged and con- disappointed.The precise criteria applied by the nursing RAE panelgratulated. Similarly, the smattering of 4 ratings and the

improvements noted in some of the establishments which will never be known, and in the absence of constructivefeedback from the higher education funding bodies, onlywere ‘new’ to the previous exercise should be noted. Some

of the ratings, both high and low, are accountable in terms putative conclusions may be drawn. These include thepossibility that the published research in nursing is of aof the proportions of sta� submitted (reflected in the A to

E banding which accompanied the ratings). An ‘A’ banding very low quality generally, that it is not of internationalstanding (despite the international audience of the leadingreflected the fact that the majority of academic sta� were

active researchers and, clearly, there was a game to be nursing research journals), that the nursing research jour-nals were not rated particularly highly by the RAE panelplayed in the number of sta� submitted for scrutiny.

The numerical ratings, therefore, reflect a combination or that nurses do not publish su�ciently in the leadingnursing research journals.of research excellence and ‘gamesmanship’ and congratu-

lations are still in order to those who successfully played That nursing research is of poor quality would come asno surprise to the many detractors of nursing research out-the game. Nevertheless, some of the establishments which

submitted the fewest sta� (one member in some cases) side the profession. An outcome such as the one whichresulted from the 1996 RAE may have been expected fromwere awarded the lowest ratings. Other institutions

undoubtedly hampered the RAE ratings of many a panel comprised of these detractors. However, the panel

641© 1997 Blackwell Science Ltd

Guest editorial

was comprised mainly of nurses, chaired by a nurse, and nurses should be turning their attention to more research-based publication.concerned solely with making judgements about nursing

research. Surely it is not the case that the panel was making Research funding was certainly part of the equationwhich was used to calculate the RAE ratings and, whilea general judgement about nursing research?things may be improving slightly, it is notoriously di�cultfor nursing to attract the scale of research grants enjoyed

International aspectby many other disciplines. If the size of funding of nursingresearch was compared using the same standards as thoseThe international standing of nursing research may be in

doubt as a result of the 1996 RAE, but what precisely does applied to other disciplines then this was putting nursingon to a playing field which was far from level.research of ‘international standing’ look like? Is a low qual-

ity study carried out with overseas collaborators worth All of the above is speculation inasmuch as the precisereasons for the low RAE rating of the majority of universitymore than a high quality ‘home grown’ project? Is the

research only international if it is published where an nursing departments in 1996 are not known. Nevertheless,one thing is known and that is the fact that the ratings areinternational audience is likely to read it? In these days of

the Internet, which is accessible to anyone with a tele- what they are and will stand as they are and the responsi-bility for making the ratings lies with the members of thephone modem and a computer in any part of the world,

the notion of an internationally recognized publication 1996 RAE panel.We would not expect them to raise standards artificiallymust be antediluvian. In fact, the system of inter-library

loans probably assigned the notion to antiquity long ago. just to escape the wrath of their fellow professionals. Noris this a plea for leniency relative to other disciplines,If there is to be an RAE in the year 2000 then guidance

on what constitutes nursing research of international merely a plea for a future RAE panel to judge nursingresearch in realistic terms, to award excellence where itstanding should, perhaps, be forthcoming.

The most worrying possibility is that nursing journals exists and to put the nursing profession on a par with otherdisciplines nationally and within institutions.are generally not of a su�ciently high quality to catch the

eye of the RAE panel. The high international standing of Not knowing how the recent judgements were made itis impossible to provide a precise formula for how thisthe Journal of Advanced Nursing, for example, has already

been demonstrated (Segesten 1995), and many other jour- could be achieved in future but it would be helpful if therewas greater transparency before the next RAE of hownals are held in high esteem by the profession. Surely, the

message is not that nurses should be publishing elsewhere judgements are going to be made in all disciplines.such as in journals of social science and medicine? If that Roger Watsonwere the case, then the discipline of nursing, distinct from BSc PhD RGN CBiol MIBiolany other cognate area, was not recognized by the Senior Lecturer,

Department of Nursing Studies,RAE panel. It is to be hoped that the nursing RAE panelThe University of Edinburgh,recognized nursing research as being worthy of its own

40 George Square,literature-base, including its own scholarly journals.Edinburgh EH8 9LL, ScotlandThe final possibility, that nurses are not publishing in

the right journals, is a distinct possibility. Nevertheless,this is not easily remedied as the pressure on journals such Referencesas Journal of Advanced Nursing to publish papers was

Segesten K. (1995) Creating a Swedish top ten list of scientificenormous prior to the RAE and will undoubtedly increase.nursing journals. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 9,High quality journals have only limited capacity and the123–126.opportunity to increase the number of papers published

Smith L.N. (1994) An analysis and reflections on the quality ofin the best scholarly nursing journals will be available tonursing research in 1992. Journal of Advanced Nursing 19,

only a few. Perhaps there is a message for the profession385–393.

here in terms of insisting on higher standards across the Tierney A.J. (1994) An analysis of nursing’s performance in theboard in nursing publications. The number of refereed 1992 assessment of research in British universities. Journal ofnursing journals is increasing but there may still be a place Advanced Nursing 19, 593–602.in nursing for less rigorous publications. However, con- Times Higher Educational Supplement (1996) Open, improving

and accountable. 20 December, p. 11.comitant with a move towards research-based practice,

642 © 1997 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 641–642