REF: the Plot Thickens

With the publication of the panel assessment criteria last week, we now have a clearer idea of what the REF is going to look like. And it's not a level playing field for all the panels. Research Professional did a good run down of how it differs between each, and here it is, in summary:

The Thorny Issue of Citations

Remember when the REF was just a glimmer in David Sweeney's eye? When all the talk was of bibliometrics and light touch review? Hah! Well, as we've known for some time, you can forget all that. The REF looks pretty much like it's the RAE with Impact, and is peer review-centric. In fact, citations are only going to be allowed in a minority of the 36 sub-panels, as follows:

• Panel A (Life Sciences): will allow citation data in all sub-panels;
• Panel B (Physical Sciences): will only allow citation data in sub-panels 7 (earth and environmental sciences), 8 (chemistry), 9 (physical sciences) and 11 (computer science)
• Panel C (Social Sciences): will only allow citation data in (some of) sub-panels 17 (geography, environmental studies and archaeology) and 18 (economics and econometrics). No panels will use journal impact factors.
• Panel D (Humanities): no citation data allowed.

Put Out by Outputs

As well as variation on citations, there's a wide variety on what's deemed acceptable as assessable outputs. 'RePro' (as no-one but me calls Research Professional) gives the example of the physical sciences vs life sciences. Life sciences are strictly 'old skool', and you can only include 'edgy' outputs like textbooks, databases or abstracts “exceptionally”, 'where they embody original research'. The physical sciences, on the other hand, are much more 'new wave', and you can submit patents, book chapters, computer algorithms and software as evidence of research output, alongside peer-reviewed publications.

The Impact of Impact

Finally, it's our old friend Impact. Generally there's a broadbrush consensus on what impact is all about, and the definition is wide enough to allow for a fairly catholic understanding of it. However, there is a minor spat in the offing when it comes to the impact of teaching. Within Panel B, research impact can include actions that have an effect on teaching or students where they extend significantly beyond your institution. However Panel C will not accept such heresy, and you can't include examples of this in your submission to them.

So, interesting times ahead. Thanks to - ahem - 'RePro' for their overview of the HEFCE docs. You can have your say on them by responding to HEFCE's consultation before 5 October.

Virginia Tech Partnering Program - Awards Announced

This year marks the second anniversary of the Virginia Tech-University of Kent Partnering Award Program. The Program is aimed at encouraging and facilitating collaboration between the two institutions, and this year three awards were made.

Ms Bilge Daldeniz (Kent Business School, University of Kent)
Dr Nancy Gard McGehee (Dept of Hospitality & Tourism Management, Virginia Tech)

Ms Daldeniz and Dr McGehee will examine the impacts of volunteer tourism on host communities. Volunteer tourism is a niche that has grown significantly in recent years, but little is known about its effects on host communities. Dr McGehee has worked on volunteer tourism for over a decade, whilst Ms Daldeniz is an emerging scholar in the area; the former’s research experience and theoretical background will complement the latter’s extensive contacts in the field. Together they will submit an application to the UK’s Economic & Social Research Council, to develop a robust, evidence-based framework for future planning, management and hosting of volunteer tourism.

Dr Todd Mei (School of European Culture & Languages, University of Kent)
Prof Nicolaus Tideman (Dept of Economics, Virginia Tech)

Dr Mei and Prof Tideman will discuss economic and philosophical concepts of land, and how related questions of rights and justice can be developed in new ways. The investigators do not share identical views on these areas, but a fertile mixture of agreement and difference exists that will lead to a healthy and critical dialogue and develop each scholar’s thought and contribution to their respective fields. Their collaboration will lead to two proposals to the UK’s Leverhulme Trust: one for a project grant, the other for a Visiting Professorship.

Dr Joao Macieira (Dept of Economics, Virginia Tech)
Dr Diogo de Souza Monteiro (Kent Business School, University of Kent)

Certification – such as that for organic farming standards – tends to be implemented and monitored by third parties (e.g., The Soil Association), and there is now a fast growing global market for the provision of these services. However, there has been little empirical research examining the performance of this market. Drs Macieria and Monteiro will undertake a pilot project to do just that, focusing initially on the organic food sector in the USA, UK and Portugal. This will lead to a joint paper, and the development of a grant proposal targeted at the National Institute of Food and Agriculture in the US, or the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the UK.

Congratulations to all those involved in these partnerships. They offer an exciting opportunity to make connections and explore shared research which will, we hope, lead to both a productive collaboration and fruitful long term ties between our two universities.