1 / 14

The Research Excellence Framework

The Research Excellence Framework. 23 Mar 2010 Graeme Rosenberg REF Manager. Consultation feedback Next steps Impact and the pilot exercise. Consultation feedback (1). Overwhelming support for REF to be a process of expert review, with output quality the dominant factor

bjorn
Download Presentation

The Research Excellence Framework

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Research Excellence Framework 23 Mar 2010 Graeme Rosenberg REF Manager

  2. Consultation feedback • Next steps • Impact and the pilot exercise

  3. Consultation feedback (1) • Overwhelming support for REF to be a process of expert review, with output quality the dominant factor • Support for institutional selection of staff, with tighter eligibility criteria • 3 or 4 outputs per person? • Cautious support for citation data to inform the review of outputs, in some UOAs

  4. Consultation feedback (2) • Broad support for including ‘historic’ impact in the REF, subject to the development of a robust method and an appropriate weighting • Objections appeared to reflect concerns about ‘predicting’ impact • Support for a wide definition of impact, long time-window and a case study approach • Much constructive feedback about the challenges of defining, evidencing, attributing and assessing impact

  5. Consultation feedback (3) • Support for including ‘environment’, using a template, and desire for a more even weighting with impact • Should REF use HESA data for PGRs and research income? • Support for four main panels and fewer sub-panels, though: • The proposed panels too large/diverse in some cases • Some reconfigurations suggested in the humanities • Will multiple submissions be allowed? • A coherent environment should not be expected

  6. Consultation feedback (4) • What more can be done to support interdisciplinary research? • Concern about the timetable • Support for the equalities measures • Acceptance of burden and unwillingness to cut this at the expense of robustness

  7. Next steps • Boards of the UK funding bodies considering the consultation outcomes • Impact pilot exercise is well underway • An early start to recruiting Main Panel Chairs Designate • Establishing an expert group to advise on equalities and diversity in the REF • Decisions on the weighting and method for impact to be taken after the pilot concludes (autumn 2010)

  8. Parameters for assessing impact • Wide definition of impact

  9. Parameters for assessing impact • Wide definition of impact • Impacts that have occurred during the REF period, underpinned by research over a longer timeframe • Impact of the unit as a whole, drawing on exemplars • Impact underpinned by excellent research, of all types • Qualitative explanation supported by quantitative indicators • Assessment through expert review, within panels according to appropriate criteria • Input from external audiences, users and beneficiaries in partnership with academics • Minimum burden necessary to enable robust assessment

  10. The impact pilot exercise • 29 UK HEIs, each submitting to two UOAs • Impact during 2005-09, underpinned by research since 1993 • Each submission to include: • An overview statement • One case study per 10 research staff • Assessment and feedback by expert panels Medicine Earth Systems & Environmental Science English Language & Literature Physics Social Work & Social Policy

  11. Some questions • Who are the audiences, users and beneficiaries? • What are the pathways to impact? • What kinds of impact have arisen? • How robust is the evidence? • What kinds of indicators are useful? • What criteria differentiate between case studies?

  12. The impact pilot panels • Clinical Medicine • Chair: Alex Markham • NHS, NICE, MHRA, ABPI, GSK, Roche, INVOLVE, GMC, ARC, BHF • Physics • Chair: Peter Saraga • Rolls Royce, IBM, Vodaphone, DSTL, TSB, STFC, NHS, NI Science Park, Science Museum Earth Systems & Environmental Science • Chair: Bob Watson, CSA DeFRA • BP, Shell, Willis Re, Viridor Waste, RSPH, Scottish Government, Environment Agency, Natural England, Greenpeace, DfID

  13. The impact pilot panels • Social Work & Social Policy • Chair: Paul Wiles, CSA Home Office • BAAF, AgeUK, SCIE, National Youth Agency, Nuffield Foundation, Hanover Housing Group, EHRC, Local Government Association, Scottish Government, DWP • England Language & Literature • Chair: Judy Simons • BBC, Authors/journalists/reviewers, British Library, British Council, Shakespeare’s Globe, Penguin Press, Brunswick Group LLP, AHRC

  14. Thank you for listening www.hefce.ac.uk/ref ref@hefce.ac.uk

More Related