FASTS is currently considering the RFCD and SEO codes as currently used e.g. by the ARC for categorising grant applications. These codes may soon become more important if they are used as a basis for reporting and funding under the new RQF system. So now is a good time to review whether these codes serve physics well.
RFCD and SEO data is collected in three hierarchical levels - 2 , 4 and 6 digit codes. However mnuch of the 4-digit data codes have a 00 suffix. This is used when universities cannot allocate at the 6 digit (xxxx01 - xxxx99) level. The xxxx99 is used as an 'other' category.
The problem is not just the codes do not adequately reflect research (as evidenced - in part - by the high, and growing, proportion of 'other') but also some universities do not provide data below 4 digit level, often due to problems coding multi-disciplinary work.
The % share of total expenditure on R&D by higher education institutions categorized as 'other' (xxxx99) codes in 2000, 2002 and 2004 was 15.94%, 16.95% to 19.49% (respectively) for RFCD codes. When 'xxxx99' and 'xxxx00' codes are added, they constitute 29.4%, 27.79% and 32.6% of the $s spent in the same years making it pretty much impossible to do any useful work on subject trends.
The corresponding figures for SEO codes are, 17.87% (29.5%); 17.99% (24.52%) and 20.32% (29.61%).
Within some disciplines the % of 'other' is considerably higher.
The main issues include:
1. There appears to be considerable redundancy in the "other" category. Not only is there a 4 digit "other physics", but also underneath it there are two 6 digit "other" categories! This is true in all 4 digit categories every one of which has an "other" catch-all category.
2. There is also not much useful sub-division within 4 digit categories. In "Theoretical and Condensed Matter Physics" there is "Theoretical and Condensed Matter Physics" and "Theoretical Physics"! Clearly the groupings are ludicrous and could do with a complete rewrite.
3. The 4 digit codes and even the 6 digit codes do not take into account the many advances in modern physics. In recognising new areas of physics, we want to make sure that they are discipline based. For example, it could be argued that nanotechnology is not a discipline, but is informed by multidisciplinary research that includes solid state physics, biophysics, atomic and molecular physics etc.
4. The more that researchers feel they are left out of particular categories, the less useful the information is, and there will be greater volatility in the "other" category reporting. Look at the large growth in the final physics "other" category for example.
Suggestions and comments would be welcomed and should be directed to Dr. Ken Baldwin at: Kenneth.Baldwin@anu.edu.au.
RFCD and SEO data is collected in three hierarchical levels - 2 , 4 and 6 digit codes. However mnuch of the 4-digit data codes have a 00 suffix. This is used when universities cannot allocate at the 6 digit (xxxx01 - xxxx99) level. The xxxx99 is used as an 'other' category.
The problem is not just the codes do not adequately reflect research (as evidenced - in part - by the high, and growing, proportion of 'other') but also some universities do not provide data below 4 digit level, often due to problems coding multi-disciplinary work.
The % share of total expenditure on R&D by higher education institutions categorized as 'other' (xxxx99) codes in 2000, 2002 and 2004 was 15.94%, 16.95% to 19.49% (respectively) for RFCD codes. When 'xxxx99' and 'xxxx00' codes are added, they constitute 29.4%, 27.79% and 32.6% of the $s spent in the same years making it pretty much impossible to do any useful work on subject trends.
The corresponding figures for SEO codes are, 17.87% (29.5%); 17.99% (24.52%) and 20.32% (29.61%).
Within some disciplines the % of 'other' is considerably higher.
The main issues include:
1. There appears to be considerable redundancy in the "other" category. Not only is there a 4 digit "other physics", but also underneath it there are two 6 digit "other" categories! This is true in all 4 digit categories every one of which has an "other" catch-all category.
2. There is also not much useful sub-division within 4 digit categories. In "Theoretical and Condensed Matter Physics" there is "Theoretical and Condensed Matter Physics" and "Theoretical Physics"! Clearly the groupings are ludicrous and could do with a complete rewrite.
3. The 4 digit codes and even the 6 digit codes do not take into account the many advances in modern physics. In recognising new areas of physics, we want to make sure that they are discipline based. For example, it could be argued that nanotechnology is not a discipline, but is informed by multidisciplinary research that includes solid state physics, biophysics, atomic and molecular physics etc.
4. The more that researchers feel they are left out of particular categories, the less useful the information is, and there will be greater volatility in the "other" category reporting. Look at the large growth in the final physics "other" category for example.
Suggestions and comments would be welcomed and should be directed to Dr. Ken Baldwin at: Kenneth.Baldwin@anu.edu.au.
