GSOE Impact Workshop

1. GSOE Impact Workshop Impact and the REF 19th May 2010 Lesley Dinsdale

2. Key features of the REF • Hefce announcement on initial decisions 25th March 2010: • Essentially a similar overall exercise as the RAE: • Peer review is fundamental • Institutional selection of staff and best four outputs to continue • Institutional submission policies • Codes of Practice: selection criteria, allowances for individual circumstances • But assessment of esteem has been replaced by assessment of the impact of research

3. REF Structure of submissions Impact Outputs Environment Element: Narrative, case study approach giving exemplars Supported by indicators ‘RA5 type’ narrative Supported by indicators: income, students Expert review, possibly informed by bibliometrics in some sub panels Assessed by: Individual, of staffsubmitted The UOA The UOA Profile against criteria: originality, significance, rigour Profile against criteria: reach and significance Profile. Criteria relating to outputs and impact Reported as: Weightings %? 60/70? 15/20? 10/20?

4. Assessment of Impact: Proposals • Assessed at the unit level, not individual • Definition of impact for REF is wide but does not include academic impact • Majority of assessment by case studies (1 per 10 FTE?) • Supported by overarching impact statement

5. Assessment of Impact: Proposals • Criteria: • Impact ‘occurred’ during survey period (Jan 2008 – survey date) • Must relate to underpinning research (from date?) of a ‘sufficient standard of rigour and originality’ • Research may be a specific piece or a ‘body of work’ • Contribution by the institution to both the underpinning research and impact • Impacts must be evidenced, including ‘indicators’ where appropriate: potentially auditable • Assessment criteria: reach and significance (‘breadth’ and ‘depth’)

6. Impact: Hefce pilot • To test Hefce proposals for methodology – submissions and assessment criteria • 29 universities, 5 UOAs including Social Policy and Social Work (UOA40) • ‘Mock’ impact submissions – case studies and impact statement, March 2010 • Pilot assessment panels – 50/50 academic/users of research. Govt Chief Social Scientist Chair of UOA40 • Panels to provide detailed report in Autumn 2010

7. Impact: UOB pilot experience and issues • High (but not universal) buy-in from academic participants • Submissions led by UOA Academic Coordinators with a small team – their detailed local knowledge and energy/enthusiasm was vital • Identification of case studies (12 submitted in total) was local – no systematic corporate sources

8. Impact: UOB pilot experience and issues • Evidencing impact: • Can we demonstrate that peoples’ lives have been changed in some way? • Some of the Hefce proposed indicators of impact are activities rather than impacts... • ...new concept of ‘intermediate impact’ • Hefce do not intend to make this an impossible exercise!

9. Impact: UOB pilot experience and issues • Many highly subject-specific issues : • Particularly in the social sciences, there is not a linear progression from research to impact • Govt commissioned work sometimes not published in a peer reviewed form? • What about high-quality research findings that are rejected by policy makers for political reasons? • What about ‘negative’ research findings?