RQF and HET: Assassin and Corpse‪?‬

I believe that the federal government's Research Quality Framework (hereafter RQF) poses a very serious threat to the survival of the history of economic thought in Australia. In this short note I set out the grounds for this belief, summarise the effects of the British government's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) on the status of HET in the United Kingdom, and outline some possible defensive reactions. This is a preliminary, tentative and (alas) pessimistic piece, intended to stimulate discussion--beginning, I hope, at the 2007 HETSA conference, if it is not already too late by then. The broad outline of what is intended for the RQF is now in the public domain (DEST 2006), though the details are still being worked out. It is intended that the British RAE will be followed quite closely, which does at least make it possible to draw some firm conclusions about the likely impact on the history of economic thought, using the published evidence from the UK. Roger Backhouse has documented the decline in HET teaching since the introduction of the RAE in 1989 and the pressure (direct and indirect) on individuals not to do HET research on the grounds that it was unlikely to 'count' for RAE purposes. 'One respondent went so far as to say, "I have been told that my interest in HET is 'unhelpful' to my department's RAE effort" and that his teaching load had been increased and his research budget cut' (Backhouse 2002a, p. 86). The situation was likely to get worse, not better, as existing HET specialists retired and were not replaced; 80% of those surveyed were over 40, the mode being 50-60 (ibid., p. 89). In sum: