REF2029 update: Pause no more!

Professor Matthew Flinders offers an update on the ending of the REF2029 ‘pause’ and the changes that announced earlier this week.

The clear message coming from ministers and officials at the recent UUK conference can be summarised in three points: 

1. REF2029 has been ‘Un-paused’
2. Reforms have been made to reduce the burden on institutions
3. Everything is now ‘back on track’ within the original timetable. 

Although there are still significant amounts of detail to be agreed upon, I think it’s reasonably fair to suggest that most of the changes will be broadly welcomed by the wider higher education sector. This is largely because the ‘pragmatic approach’ that underpinned the pause has taken REF2029 back towards something that is more like REF2021.

The new announcements included:

• A new ‘Strategy, People and Research Environment’ (SPRE) element will be worth 20%, replacing the former ‘People, Culture and Environment Section’
• ‘Contribution to Knowledge and Understanding’ increased to 55%
• Unit level statements removed from both ‘Contribution to Knowledge and Understanding’ (CKU) and ‘Impact and Engagement’ (E&I)
• The assessment of CKU will be based solely on outputs submitted to REF, and the assessment of E&I will largely follow the same approach as for REF2021 but with encouragement and opportunity for units to outline their approaches to engagement
• Limited portability introduced for long-form and extended process research outputs (five years)
• Suggested maximum of no more than five outputs per individual to aid representativeness of submissions
• Guidance on all three elements has been published, as has the People, Culture and Environment pilot report
• No multi-track approach but Research England are looking to expand REF2021’s optional policy for small units not to submit to REF.

What does this mean for Sub-Panel 19?

The main focus for the sub-panel is to move towards the criteria setting phase, with meetings of both Main Panel C and Sub-Panel 19 (criteria setting phase members) already in the diary for early 2016.

Sub-Panel 19 – Criteria setting members

• Matthew Flinders, University of Sheffield (Chair)
• Ailsa Henderson, University of Edinburgh (Deputy Chair)
• David Galbreath, University of Bath
• Eleanor Bindman, Manchester Metropolitan University
• Inderjeet Parmar, City St George’s, University of London
• John Garry, Queen’s University, Belfast
• Leigh Jenco, London School of Economics
• Richard Whitman, University of Kent
• Sophia Harman, Queen Mary, University of London

Sub-panel members for the criteria setting phase will not work in isolation. Not only will members of the full panel also be brought into the process, but I also intend to keep working with the PSA and BISA as we move towards the publication of full guidance in the Autumn.

There are lots of areas where the sub-panel will have to work with Main Panel C to agree protocols and processes, but one specific topic relates to the 60/40 split in the new ‘Strategy, People and Research Environment’ element.

Put simply, the university level statement will be worth 12% of an overall REF score, and the unit-level statement only 8%. The rationale for this weighting towards the institution over the unit is that it is the institution that has the primary role in defining strategic priorities and the context within which unit-level research is conducted. But the process for grading the institution-level statement remains uncertain, as does whether the sub-panel will have access to the institution-level scores when it assesses the unit-level statements.

Although these and many other questions are still to be resolved, what’s clear is that REF2029 has survived the pause and is now moving on to the next stage.