I’ve long had a pretty cynical attitude towards the periodic
exercises for rating research activities of UK higher education institutions.
The problem is cost-effectiveness. Institutions put forward detailed
submissions in which the best research outputs of their academics are
documented. A panel of top academics then considers these, and central funding
is awarded according to the ratings. This takes up massive amounts of time of
those writing and reviewing the submissions.The end result is a rank ordering
of institutions that seldom contains any surprises. Pretty much the same
ordering could be obtained by, for instance, taking a panel of top academics in
a given field and sitting them down in a room to vote. This is a point made
many years ago by Colin
Blakemore, talking about the REF’s predecessor, the RAE.
For the REF 2014, the rules have now changed, so that we
don’t only have to document what research we’ve published: we also have to
demonstrate its impact. Impact has a very specific definition. It has to
originate from a particular academic paper and you have to be able to quantify
its effect in the wider world. This poses a new challenge to those preparing
REF submissions, a challenge that many institutions are taking very seriously.
All over the UK,
meetings are being convened to discuss impact statements. Here in Oxford, we’ve already had
several long meetings of senior professors devoted just to this issue. Then
this week I saw an
advertisement from UCL that goes a step further. They are looking for three
editorial consultants on a salary of £32,055 - £38,744 per annum to work on
their REF impact statements.
This induced in me a sense of despair. Why, you may ask?
After all, academics are hard-pressed and this is a way of taking some of the
burden from them, while ensuring that their work is presented in the best
possible light. My problem with this is that it exemplifies a shift in
priorities from substance to presentation. Funds that could have been used to
support the university’s core functions of teaching or research go towards PR. And the REF, an exercise that is supposed to enhance the UK’s
research, ends up leaching money as well as time from the system.
Here’s a suggestion. Those who are on REF panels should do
their own private rankings of higher education institutions and put them in a
sealed envelope now. After the REF results are announced, they can compare the
outcome with their predictions. Then we will be able to see whether the huge
amounts of time and money spent on this exercise have been worthwhile.
Posts
