REF2021: Code of Practice Consultation

1. REF2021:Code of Practice Consultation

2. REF2021- Lord Stern Review • November 2015 - Minister of Universities and Science commissioned an Independent review of the Research Excellence Framework. • Stern review principles include: • Reduce the burden and cost • Reflect full spectrum of UK research • Promote inclusivity and avoid divisiveness • Reduce ‘gaming’ and ‘transfer markets’ • Promote interdisciplinary research • Widen impact • Capturing the research environment: Reward institutional investment (non-portability) • Peer Review (metrics) • Effects on research and careers (no short termism) • Report published in July 2016 • Consultation on review by Funding Body in December 2016 • Decision announced Sept and Nov 2017

3. REF 2021 Staff eligibility: • Decisions: • All staff with a significant responsibility for research are to be submitted to the REF • Core eligibility criteria • academic staff with a contract of employment of 0.2 FTE+ on the payroll on the census date (31 July 2020 • primary function is to undertake either ‘research only’ or • ‘teaching and research’ • conducting independent research • institutions are required to implement a process to determine ‘significant responsibility for research’

4. Staff eligibility: • Definition: • Staff with significant responsibility for research are those: • For whom explicit time and resources are made available to engage actively in independent research and that it is an expectation of their job role

5. Consultation – Submissions and panel criteria • REF published draft Guidance on Submissions and Panel criteria in July 2018 followed by consultation • Final Guidance on Submissions and Panel criteria released end Jan 2019 • Guidance on Submissions • Approach to take account of staff circumstances • Additional clarification on research independence and significant responsibility for research • Eligibility of staff in non-UK based units • Eligibility of outputs by former staff made redundant • Version of output returned (former staff) • Returning co-authored outputs more than once in same submission • Tolerance band for open access • Word limit for institutional level environment statement

6. Consultation - panel criteria & working methods • Panel criteria • Research independence • Co-authorship statements • Double weighting • Continued impact case studies • Increased focus on equality and diversity in environment • Working on developing Edinburgh Napier CoP to adhere to new guidance

7. Code of Practice: • All institutions are required to provide a Code of Practice covering the following: • Policy and procedures for identifying staff with significant responsibility for research (only necessary for HEIs with units that do not submit 100% of Category A staff) • Clear justification / evidence for why someone is not significantly responsible for research • Policy and procedures for determining whether staff meet definition of an independent researcher • Policy and procedures for fair and transparent selection of outputs, including staff circumstances • Approved by Scottish Funding Council with advice from the Equality and Diversity Advisory Panel (EDAP).  • Submission of Code of Practice due 7th June 2019

8. Significant responsibility for research • Definition of SRR at Edinburgh Napier • All Category A eligible staff members on a teaching and research contract, who have normally received a research allowance of at least 0.2FTE per FTE per year during the REF period with associated research objectives (pro rata for part-time staff or minimum of 0.1FTE research allocation) • Transparent and auditable through University WAM system and MyContribution • Staff who have left / retired in the period may have an eligible period in which case can use outputs from their eligible period.

9. Workload associated with research activity • Possible evidence for significant responsibility for research • Research pathway (Academic Appointment and Promotion Framework) • Expect min 0.2FTE research allocation per FTE with associated research objectives • Other Pathways • Possible research allocation of 0.2 FTE with associated research objectives • PI on a ‘significant’ grant in the REF period • Research allocation as specified on the grant with associated grant objectives • Supervising a research degree in the REF period • Research allocation for supervising research students

10. Implications of WAM based approach • Important to allocate appropriate allowances for agreed research objectives • Must be recorded accurately on WAM system • for years 17-18, 18-19, 19-20 • Schools must consider Equality and Diversity issues in the allocation of work across the school. • Clear and transparent process in schools related to pathways and related objectives.

11. Independent Researchers • For the purposes of the REF, an independent researcher is defined as: • An individual who undertakes self-directed research, rather than carrying out another individual’s research programme. • ENU considers any one of the following criteria to be an appropriate reflection of research independence: • leading or acting as principal investigator or equivalent on a substantial externally funded research project • holding an independently won, competitively awarded fellowship where research independence is a requirement • leading a research group or substantial or specialised research work package • All staff on research contracts at grade 6 and 7 will be assessed against Edinburgh Napier’s research independence criteria • Based on the suggested, possible indicators of research independence in the REF guidance on submissions.

12. Output Selection • The REF2021 guidance on submissions advises that category A eligible staff members can be submitted with a min 1 and max 5 outputs. • Edinburgh Napier will select the highest quality outputs for submission which satisfy the above irrespective of individual authors • There will be a four stage approach to output assessment: • self-assessment of all research outputs • independent peer-assessment all research outputs scoring 2* high or above in step 1. by two colleagues in the respective School; • independent assessment of all research outputs scoring 2* High and above in step 2. by an external reviewer. • NB where the resulting scores are diverse a second external reviewer may be appointed. • Assignment of a final considered score following agreement by UoA moderation panel meeting consisting of internal and external moderators.

13. Equality and diversity in REF 2021 • Funding bodies are committed to supporting and promoting equality and diversity in research careers. • Many reasons why an excellent researcher may have fewer or more outputs attributable to them in an assessment period. • It is not expected that all staff members would be returned with the same number of outputs. • REF expect that the flexibility offered by decoupling individuals and outputs will be reflected in institutions’ expectations of individual researchers. • Funding bodies have put in place processes to recognise the effect that an individual’s circumstances may have on their productivity.

14. Staff Circumstances • Staff who have been deemed significantly responsible for research will be invited to complete a form whereby staff can declare any circumstances. • this is voluntary, it does not have to be completed by the staff member. • Individuals can request to be exempt from the minimum of one research output • will not be submitted for exemption unless they have consented to declare circumstances voluntarily. • The process of declaration will be managed centrally between HR and RIO to ensure • consistency across the six schools and all UoAs • confidentiality of the data • The Dean of Research & Innovation will determine compliance for requesting removal of the minimum of one output for any individual • UoA output reductions may be requested where a UoA is disproportionately affected by cumulative effect of staff circumstances

15. Removing requirement of min. one output • Where an individual has not been able to produce an eligible output AND • Any of the following circumstances apply within the period 1 January 2014 to 31 July 2020: • overall period of min. 46 months from research due to one of more of the applicable circumstances • circumstances equivalent to 46 months or more absence from research, where circumstances set out in paragraph 160 apply (such as mental health issues, caring responsibility, long-term health conditions) or • two or more qualifying periods of family-related leave. • NB: If an individual has an output (of any quality) they cannot be exempt from minimum one submission

16. Unit circumstances • Reductions can be requested for UoAs based on cumulative effect of circumstances in the UoA • If the unit has been disproportionately affected by equality-related circumstances to the extent that flexibility of decoupling is not an effective solution • Small unit with high proportion of staff with circumstances • Disciplines where fewer outputs are traditionally published (e.g. those where monograph is the disciplinary norm) • Would not expect to see, for example, large unit with >100 staff seeking reduction of 2 outputs (unless linked to min. one removal request)

17. Equality Impact Assessments • It is important the CoP does not introduce discriminatory practices within the University. • Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) will be conducted by the HR Inclusion team and RIO at key points in the run up to the REF2021 submission on: • Mini-REF • Final Code of Practice • Identifying Staff as Significant responsible for research • Determining research independence • The selection of outputs • The EIAs will specifically look at the implications of utilising the CoP to identify staff for submission to REF in terms of protected characteristic groups.

18. E&D Training • The University needs to ensure that its REF procedures do not discriminate unlawfully against protected characteristics. • Equality and Diversity training will be provided to staff involved in the application of the REF CoP criteria. • Only staff who have attended the E&D training will be allowed to undertake discussions relating to identification of staff with SRR and allocation of research time.

19. Appeals • ENU has established a REF-specific appeals process. • It is hoped that any issue relating to the identification of staff with significant responsibility for research and allocation of research time or independence of research will be resolved at local level through informal discussion. • If the issue cannot be resolved at local level staff have the right to appeal directly to the University REF Appeals Panel. • The University REF Appeals Panel members will be independent to any previous REF decision making related to the individual.

20. Questions/Comments

21. Applicable circumstances

22. Applicable circumstances

23. Applying reductions Step one Step two Step three Step four

24. Worked example

25. Worked example Decision not to request unit circs

28. Mini-REF 2018 Outcome • The mini-REF exercise considered fourteen units of assessment for submission to REF2021 • Pre the panel meetings it was decided no submission will be made for Unit of Assessment 23 – Education • An individual report for each Unit of Assessment has been written highlighting key findings and recommendations • No report for UoA 23 • Recommendation not to submit for UoA 26 or UoA 23 • DoR or UoA Leader will be able to discuss outcomes • Unit of Assessment Leaders and DoRs are now responsible for developing and implementing targeted actions plans • The summary outlines each UoA by REF-Readiness using RAG status

29. Mini-REF 2018 summary – UoA Readiness

30. Staff Significantly Responsible for Research 291 mini-REF 273 Jan 2019 269 FTE mini-REF 259 FTE Jan 2019

31. FTE Jan 19 4912373930515251112717 Number of outputs available for eligible staff by score for UoAs Percentage of outputs available for eligible staff by score for UoAs

32. FTE + Output profile for UoAs Jan 2019 FTE Jan 19 4912373930515251112717