REF 2021 Post-Stern. David Sweeney Director (Research, Education and Knowledge Exchange. Inside Government R&D Conference.

Transcription

1 REF 2021 Post-Stern David Sweeney Director (Research, Education and Knowledge Exchange Inside Government R&D Conference 29th Nov 2016

2 REF: the evidence

3 Spending review

4 Independent review of REF Spending review 2015 December 2015 Government announced review chaired by Lord Stern January 2016 Call for evidence published July 2016 Independent review published

5 Independent review of REF The REF and the RAEs that preceded it have been a success Recommendations build on the success of earlier assessment exercises; broad structure should not change Established clear principles and directions for reform The recommendations were designed and should be taken as a complementary package Clear understanding of the importance of dual funding in the UK research system and the crucial role played by QR funding

6 Next Steps Government response to Independent Review I have asked HEFCE to work together with the other HE funding bodies to develop detailed proposals which take forward the recommendations from the Review, including any further testing and piloting. Draft consultation currently being considered by Boards of the UK funding bodies Expect to launch a consultation very shortly 14 week consultation period including five consultation events

7 Selected Principles Lower Burden More rounded submission Less game-playing Less personalisation, more institutionally focussed Recognition for investment Inter-disciplinary emphasis Institutional focus where appropriate Broaden Impact

8 Recommendations of Independent Review Outputs 1. All research active staff should be returned in the REF 2. Outputs should be submitted at UOA level with a set average number per FTE but with flexibility for some staff members to submit more and others less than the average 3. Outputs should not be portable 4. Panels should continue to assess on the basis of peer review. However, metrics should be provided to support panel members in their assessment, and panels should be transparent about their use.

9 Recommendation 1: All research active staff should be returned in the REF Remove the burden of staff selectivity HEIs would no longer select which staff to submit to the REF How to define and identify research-active staff? Academic employment function of research only or teaching and research HESA Staff Collection?

10 Recommendation 2: Outputs should be submitted at UOA level with a set average number per FTE but with flexibility for some faculty members to submit more and others less than the average Number of outputs based on volume of staff Breaking the link between individuals and outputs Multiplier of two is recommended to maintain volume of outputs Removes requirement for individual staff circumstances How much flexibility? Maximum of six and potential minimum of zero?

11 Recommendation 3: Outputs should not be portable Outputs should be submitted only by the institution where they were demonstrably generated Addressing concerns around poaching Review recommended that accepted for publication would be the marker for demonstrably generated How might this apply to all output type (monographs, performances, compositions) Would non-portability have a negative impact on certain groups and how might this be mitigated?

12 Recommendations of Independent Review Impact 5. Institutions should be given more flexibility to showcase their interdisciplinary and collaborative impacts by submitting institutional level impact case studies 6. Impact must be based on research of demonstrable quality. However case studies could be linked to a research activity and a body of work as well as to specific research outputs 7. Impact case studies should not be narrowly interpreted, need not solely focus on socio-economic impacts, but should also include impact on public engagement and understanding, on cultural life, on academic impacts outside the field, and impacts on teaching Environment 8. A new institutional level Environment assessment should include an account of the institution s future research environment strategy, a statement of how it supports high quality research and research-related activities, including its support for interdisciplinary and cross-institutional initiatives and impact. It should form part of the institutional assessment and should be assessed by a specialist, cross-disciplinary panel. 9. UOA environment statements are condensed, made complementary to the institutional level environment statement and include key metrics on research intensity specific to the UOA

13 Recommendation 5: Institutions should be given more flexibility to showcase their interdisciplinary and collaborative impacts by submitting institutional level impact case studies, part of a new institutional level assessment. All institutions that submit to the REF should be required to submit some institutional level impact case studies To better demonstrate impacts that arise from multi- and interdisciplinary and collaborative work How many? What counts as an institutional level case study? Requirement to pilot institutional level assessment

14 What next? HEFCE will work with the other funding bodies to take forward recommendations from the Review Expect to launch consultation shortly Other areas for consultation UOA structure Expert panels Impact Outcomes and weighting Initial decisions on next REF published mid-2017

15 Thank you for listening