A review of the UK Research Excellence Framework was commissioned by the Minister of Universities and Science, Jo Johnson in November 2015.
There has been a large number of views and evidence provided by the community that have been vital in shaping this review, through hundreds of responses to the Call for Evidence; interviews with universities, academics, research users and intermediaries; and a small number of stakeholder meetings
The review can be found attached
A summary of the elite UK university response can be found on:
https://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/media/5363/response-to-the-stern-review-of-the-research-excellence-framework.pdf
However what is of interest to me is what are the wider research community views on this proposal, bearing in mind that if implemented it could potentially have major impacts on research culture in the UK Higher Education sector?
By no means based on extensive reading and/or research, but my reaction to the Stern review recommendations in general are:
I am very welcoming of the idea that all appropriate staff should be entered into the REF. It seems to me this should have been implemented a long time ago. Allowing the selection of those to put forward is clearly to the detriment of transparency of an institution's quality of output.
Metrics are a terrible way to assess research by anyone's standards. Quite how they expect to account for the huge variation in all metrics by sub- (and sub-sub-sub-) discipline is a mystery to me.
As an 'early stage career researcher' (less than 5 years out of a PhD) I am curious as to how the portability of outputs will play out. On the one hand, I can see that it is sensible for institutions who supported research to claim the credit for it. But equally, will this give more power to institutions over researchers, a power that they already utilise as best they can with temporary contracts etc. This could well promote their continued use and proliferation.
The only other comment I have in general, is that I do worry about the importance and 'scale' of the impact case studies. I think there is a tendancy for these to encourage institutions to focus funding and resources only on those areas that fit their anticipated case study areas, leaving less room for innovative or more niche research. This is particularly true in the social sciences (where I work) where the need to link to impact, means an institution wants a body of research and impact for the small number of case-studies they are to put forward.
My two cents worth, based on nothing but personal interpretation, and a quick and likely wrong reading of the report!
R
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research