Society for Italian Studies
As Chairman of the Society for Italian Studies I am writing on the
Society's
behalf to respond to the invitation to contribute to this review. The
Society
represents all teachers of Italian in UK universities. While our
members have a
range of opinions on the subject, the points I make below are shared by
most of
them. For present purposes I am assuming that something like the
present system
of peer review continues, since our members are broadly satisfied with
it. We
would like to underline those aspects of the last two RAEs which we
believe
worked in the general interests of our subject.
While one or two Italian departments were returned as part of European
Studies
units in the last RAE, the majority will wish to continue to be treated
as units
of assessment in Italian, and would oppose combinations with other
languages or
subjects. We think it important that individual panels should retain
the degree
of freedom that they currently enjoy to set their own criteria: the
balance in
the last exercise between common standards and allowance for the
peculiarities
of individual subjects seemed to us about right. There are significant
differences even between different modern languages that require
special
adjustments to be made. Consultation by the panel with the subject
community on
these issues, through the Chair of the Society for Italian Studies,
seems to us
essential to maintain the community's confidence, and we would like
that to
continue in any similar system.
We welcomed the decision of the Italian panels to base their assessment
primarily on the reading of the items submitted: a great advantage in
a
minority discipline where publication can often take non-standard
forms. While
we would wish something like RA5 and RA6 to continue to be taken
seriously as
part of the assessment, it must be remembered that research cultures in
small
units of assessment cannot always be measured against those of large
units. We
do not believe it appropriate for quantitative methods to be used in
assessments
for a subject such as ours. Such information of a quantitative kind as
is
available is too partial and unreliable.
The period of six years that the last assessments covered is we believe
the
essential minimum for humanities disciplines such as ours. We would
welcome a
longer interval between one assessment and the next, because of the
time and
energy expended in each exercise.
We believe consultation with the subject community, through the Chair
of the
Society for Italian Studies, to be an indispensable stage in the
appointment
both of the Panel Chair and of panel members, if the community's
confidence is
to be maintained. The fact that this took place is one reason for our
members
broad confidence in the existing system.
For the same reason we feel that a minimum number of staff should not
be
required, in a minority subject such as ours, for the attainment of the
highest
grade. If there were such a requirement, it could lead to centres of
outstanding international importance failing to be duly recognized in
the RAE.
It would also be a real difficulty for the subject if the proportion of
staff
submitted were partly to determine the award of grades. Where units of
assessment are very small, the inclusion or exclusion of only one
member of
staff can made a great deal of difference. We would not wish a unit of
high
international standing to fail to receive the due recognition of a 5*
simply
because of one non-research-active member of staff.
We would like to highlight, at all events, the fact that there can be
peculiar
problems in the assessment of staff at the beginning of their careers
in a
minority subject such as ours, where departments can acquire a majority
of new
and young appointees from one year to the next. We obviously feel that
the
maximum allowance should be made in such cases.
Best wishes,
David Robey
Professor David Robey
School of Modern Languages
University of Reading
Whiteknights
Reading RG6 6AA
tel. 0118 9318401
fax
0118
9316797