In the survey referred to in 鈥Modern languages REF results 鈥榮kewed鈥 by subpanel merger鈥 (News, 27 August), respondents were asked, 鈥淲as the change of panel structure a benefit?鈥 To this, 22 respondents said 鈥渘o鈥 and 22 said 鈥測es鈥, with one person responding 鈥淚 don鈥檛 know鈥. So the conclusion in the article that 鈥渁bout half of the 45 scholars who responded would like to see the current structure changed鈥 is correct, but the conclusion 鈥渁bout half of the 45 scholars who responded see the current structure as beneficial鈥 would have been equally appropriate. To use a headline that refers to results having been 鈥渟kewed鈥 in favour of linguistics, and to use only quotes from those who are negative, seems a disingenuous and unhelpful way of reporting on the survey.
Contrary to the tone of the article, the outcome of the research excellence framework for modern languages and linguistics suggests there is good reason to celebrate the high quality of research in all areas that fall within the sub-panel. In seven precursor research assessment exercise 2008 sub-panels, the percentage of 4* and 3* research identified ranged from 47 per cent to 58 per cent, whereas the same figure for the REF is 72 per cent. It is time to build on the clear international excellence in research identified by the REF in these areas, not least to address challenges relating to recruitment in modern languages as well as the more general issue of building a new public understanding of these subjects.
Kersti B枚rjars, University of Manchester, chair, subpanel 28
Charles Forsdick, University of Liverpool, deputy chair, subpanel 28
Register to continue
Why register?
- Registration is free and only takes a moment
- Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
- Sign up for our newsletter
Subscribe
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to 罢贬贰鈥檚 university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber?
