Formulaic Follies Revisited

Or, Why Geography Researchers Get Almost Twice as Much Money as do Town Planners in English Universities

Bibliographic Data

ID4746660
AuthorsRon Johnston (0000-0003-3031-8573, University of Essex, corresponding author), R J Johnston (0000-0001-7523-2701, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, Essex CO4 3SQ, England)
Year1993
Volume25
Issue10
Pages1527-1534
Publication date1993-10-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and Space (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0308-518X • E-ISSN: 1472-3409
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1068/a251527
OpenAlexW2030645033
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited3

The funding for research activities in English universities from 1993/94 on is based on a formula allocation which has many apparent anomalies: variations in the standardised sums available per discipline bear little relationship to interdisciplinary differences in research costs. Using data released by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, I seek to understand how those differences have come about. Only 43% of the variation could be accounted for statistically by a simple classification of disciplines into clinical, science, and social science/humanities. A further 17% was associated with four other factors reflecting institutional differences in aspects of the disciplines which could have been taken into account when the allocation formula was determined-but which were not. The conclusion is that a much fairer system can and must replace that currently operated

Epistemology · Linguistics · Mathematics education · Regional science · Research council · Social science · Sociology · Global Health Workforce Issues · Historical Geography and Geographical Thought · Primary Care and Health Outcomes · Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub