Better balance sought in assessing arts research
Arts researchers at the University of Hong Kong want the government's funding body to stop assessing their output purely by volume.
They say that simply counting the number of books written and the frequency with which they are quoted is an unfair measure of their work.
But the University Grants Committee, which is making its three-yearly review of university staff actively engaged in research, would not give any such guarantee yesterday.
The review is used to help determine funding for individual universities for the next three years.
Hong Kong University pro-vice-chancellor John Malpas said academics had designed new assessment methods for arts research.
One key method was to establish a jury of external experts to assess research performance.
He said the standard measure of output, by counting publications and the number of times they were quoted, overlooked the fact that it could take several years' research to produce one book.
Professor Malpas, who is acting dean of arts, added that the faculty bore the brunt of university funding cuts because of the general view that science and technology were more important.
Another pro-vice-chancellor, Paul Tam Kwong-hang, said the new assessment would first be adopted internally to determine staff promotions.
The Times of London recently placed the university 29th on a list of the world's top 50 arts and humanities universities.
