Disquiet on the research front.

Abstract

Medical research, to the extent that it is universitybased and government funded, is under increasing pressure to institute or accept external monitoring. In September 1986, the Australian Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission issued a report titled “Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education”, otherwise known as the Hudsonreport [ 11. In essence, the report calls for a national centre to be established for the collation and dissemination of higher education statistics, the centre being in a position to develop and maintain performance indicators for use both within institutions and for the higher education system as a whole. The report argues that there must be an evaluation of quality so that performance is assessed and standards maintained. Specifically, such practices include “analysis of research output and national and international standing” as well as “periodic reviews of departments, schools and faculties”. The subsequent recommendations are not all sanction-based (although tenure and other so-called luxuries will be less freely given), while compensating strategies include the issue of salary loadings (rather like the honour awards given in the UK to clinicians) for those who provide exceptional performance in designated areas. There is no reason to imagine that psychiatry will be ignored in any review or monitoring process. Whether such processes are imposed from “outside”, developed from the “inside” or collaboratively designed will depend on a number of factors, including the judgments which the psychiatric research community