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