HEFCE Announces 'Confidence and Supply' Logo

We were shocked to learn today that, despite all the excellent work by the Fundermentals Creative Team, it's logo was not chosen to represent REF2021.

Logo: not chosen

The Nudge Effect

When David Cameron and Nick Clegg stumbled, blinking, into power in 2010 they issued The Coalition: Our programme for government, which tried to identify the common ground that existed between their two parties. “We are both committed to turning old thinking on its head and developing new approaches to government. For years...there has been the assumption that central government can only change people’s behaviour through rules and regulations. Our government will be a much smarter one, shunning the bureaucratic levers of the past and finding intelligent ways to encourage, support and enable people to make better choices for themselves.”

This idea came from a book written by Richard Thaler, an economist at the University of Chicago, and Cass Sunstein of the Harvard Law School. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness was a little like Freakonomics before it: a popular, counterintuitive take on the behavioural psychology that underlies the apparently rational choices we make.

Tracking the Impact Beast

Impact, that mythical beast

When impact first burst onto the scene seven years ago it was so radical an idea, so controversial a concept, that we used to run ‘impact surgeries’, to which academics could bring their research ideas and where we would suggest possible ways in which their work could have impact. We were no impact experts, but had the objectivity and distance to see beyond the immediate research to its potential effect on the wider world.

Exclusive: Design of REF2020 Logo Revealed

With just fifty months until the likely submission date for the next REF, HEFCE has announced the design for the REF2020 logo.

The design was revealed at a showbiz ceremony in the heart of Bristol's glittering Abbey Wood. An expectant crowd of literally tens - or ten - of Higher Education's finest celebrities gathered to drink mulled cava and eat slightly stale Hula Hoops and listen to the announcement.

The Trouble with Citations

Gender and Citation: Nature breaks down the figures

For the past two years the Times Higher (THE) has published a league table of the top 100 universities under 50. This is a spin off of its more established World University Rankings. Whilst I accept that we live in a league table world, and have joked about this in the past on this blog ('Almost Everyone Can Score Well at Something'), I do have a niggling worry about this latest manifestation of the genre.

Hail the Phoenix

Joni Mitchell captured it perfectly: 'you don't know what you've got til it's gone'. The repercussions of the demise of the 1994 Group will, I think, be felt for some time yet. Whilst I took plenty of sideswipes at the 1994 Group in its last, doddery years - it was such an easy target, wasn't it? - the gap that it's left is a significant one for the UK's higher education sector.

In essence, we've now got a one brand market place. The Russell Group is the Acme Corporation. It is GUM. I've heard rumours that the Russell Group was not exactly passive in the self destruction of the 94 Group last summer. If this is true, it should be ashamed of the part in played. Whilst all is fair in love, war and the feuding of mission groups, having one citadel of research is not good for the long term health of the UK's research ecosystem.

I've made no bones about believing that increasing funding concentration is a Bad Thing, and  I hope that HEFCE sticks to its guns and 'fund excellent research in all its forms wherever it is found'. I think it would be incredibly detrimental to the whole sector if we moved to a situation where we had a divide between 'research' and 'teaching' universities. It would be harmful to the early careers of many academics, but also to the experience of students. Research should inform teaching, and teaching inform research. Having a strong research ecosystem across the sector is good for the UK as a whole.

However, to ensure its survival this ecosystem needs to be protected. Someone needs to fight the corner of the non-RG universities. Someone needs to speak for the majority. I think its disingenuous - or just plain stupid - to think that individual universities can speak as loudly or be heard as widely as a collective voice.  In the weeks that have followed the closure of the 1994 Group a number of possible candidates have been suggested, such as Universities UK (UUK), University Alliance, and even the Association of Research Managers and Administrators (ARMA). 

I don't think any of these are appropriate. Both UUK and ARMA should be looking after the interests of all in the sector, both non-RG and RG. The University Alliance has a particular mission in supporting and encouraging innovation within it member institutions. What we need instead is either to get rid of all mission groups and just have a single body speaking on behalf of the whole UK HE sector, or a body who can safeguard the smaller research intensive universities. The former is never going to happen; the RG brand has become too useful to its members. The latter isn't going to happen anytime soon either: too many fingers have been burnt, I think, in the sad end of the 1994 Group. The idea behind the Senate Group was a good one, a positive one, but it was ultimately scuppered by delays and self interest.

What we are left with, for the time being, is the RG, and a patchwork of regional groupings, from N8, M5, GW4 and Kent's own Eastern ARC. These do, I think, offer a solution for the moment. They allow the member universities to be more than the sum of their parts, and to spark interesting, interdisciplinary collaborations. They may even, in time, lead to a more 'federalised' sector. But there's always a danger that 'federalised' might lead to 'factionalised', with inter-regional scrapping and the building of walls between the groups.

Despite what some say, and despite the silly playground politics they engender, I think 'mission groups' do have their place. Or rather, in a world where some belong to a powerful mission group, the rest need to have the advocacy offered by one. Let's hope that a phoenix rises from the ashes of the 1994 Group. And soon.

Another Professor Writes

Revd Prof Tutu McGlenn: Clean

Dear Sir

I write in support of Prof (emeritus) Piebald Arbuthnott's admirable clarification on the use of adjectives by the Russell Group and Post-92s.

Final REF Criteria Published

The final versions of the REF Panel Criteria and Working Methods were published yesterday, and are available here.

Highlights include:

• outputs pre-published in 2007 may be submitted as long as they were not submitted to RAE2008
• the number of outputs required of ECRs remains as in the draft criteria
• a new tariff has been introduced for the number of outputs required of staff who work part-time, go on secondment or have career breaks
• working methods are now common across the whole exercise; not distinguished by panel
• a reduction of one output per period of statutory maternity or adoption leave is allowed, with no minimum qualifying period
• a reduction of one output per period of ‘additional paternity or adoption leave’ lasting 4 months or more.

Thanks to my colleague Clair Thrower for looking at the criteria and picking out these points. If you have specific questions about this do drop her a line.

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.

Statement on Impact: Why?

HEFCE, RCUK and UUK have issued a joint statement on the joys of impact. Like Cameron's take on the UK/US relationship, things have moved from being 'special' to being 'essential.'

The statement is all a bit, well, yadda, yadda, yadda: 'committed to working together', 'embedding througout', 'engage with business', 'beneficial outcomes', 'continue to work together', 'work coherently together' etc etc

But why did the three august institutions feel the need at this time to issue a generic statement that says almost nothing? It might have something to do with the REF: the Guidance on Submissions was published on the 14th July, and it's clear (if you were at all uncertain) how important impact is going to be this time around. Still, that doesn't really explain the reason for such a statement.

To me, it has the feel of whistling in the dark, to ward off the unbelievers and dissenters, of repeating something over and over, sotto voce, to reassure yourself that what you know is right, right? and what you believe will prevail. But something like this often has an opposite effect: it makes you think, 'why are they telling me this? Do they know something I don't?'

So beyond whistling in the dark, what's the point? I'd love to know. If you work for HEFCE, RCUK or UUK do drop me a line explaining the background to the statement. Alternatively, if you don't work for any of these three wise monkeys, just guess. The more conspiratorial the better. They'll be a prize for the best of a superb non-flashing pen, crafted from pure transparent plastic with colour coded lid and end stopper detailing.

REF Impact: Case Studies Published

Following the publication of the findings of the REF Impact Pilot Study last month, we now have more idea of what makes a 'good' case study - in HEFCE's opinion. The Funding Council has made available a limited number of the case studies prepared by the participants in the Pilot Study.

To view them, go to the HEFCE site here, and scroll down to the Case Studies at the bottom of the page.

REF Impact Pilot: Less Would Be More

Hefce has published the findings of the REF Impact Pilot exercise. Whilst broadly supportive of the assesment of Impact as part of the REF ('workable' was there somewhat less than glowing conclusion), it was felt that the weighting given to impact assessment should be reduced from the planned 25 per cent.

29 UK HEIs took part in the exercise. Each participating HEI made an impact submission to two of the five pilot Units of Assessment (UOAs). The REF team then recruited an expert panel for each of the five pilot UOAs to assess the impact submissions and report their findings on the assessment method.

As well as reducing the weighting, they thought that:

• The expert review of case studies was an appropriate means for assessing impact.
• The case study approach should be developed further for use in the REF - with some improvements, such as better guidance, changes to the template, and a clearer understanding of the parameters of impact.
  

The full report and annexes are available here.

Strong Reaction from the Sector to the Cable Gaffe

There's been a strong reaction to Vince Cable's gaffe on the Today programme on Wednesday, when he suggested that 'something like 45% of the research grants that were going through were to research that was not of excellent standard so we are going to have to set the bar higher.' Twitter's been abuzz, and there's been the inevitable facebook groups set up - eg 'Vince Cable's Wrong on Science'.

Dr Evan Harris, writing in the Guardian, summaries the controversy quite clearly, quoting James Wilsdon of the Royal Society who explains why Cable got it so wrong:

'In the last Research Assessment Exercise, 54% of the work that was submitted for assessment was classed as 3* or 4*, which means it is, by definition, world class. This research receives £980m from Hefce. Research that is 2* (which Hefce still regards as 'internationally recognised') gets £115 million and 1* research gets nothing. So Hefce allocates the vast majority – nearly 90% – of its funding to world class research.'

Elsewhere others are exasperated at Cable's call for UK science to be more efficient and 'do more with less.' '1% of the world’s pop. but contributes 8% of its sci papers, and 12% of journal citations,' quotes one tweet, which speaks for itself, whilst Chris Tyler says 'just read Cable's speech. So spending more on science would be good for UK AND we will see science budget cuts.'

Finally, to finish up the round of rumours, there's talk of how large the cuts will be. The current rumour is that 'BIS may settle with Treasury next week -10% plus inflation is best case but -15/-20% more likely.'

We'll wait and see.

REF Panel Chairs Announced

The Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) has appointed Stephen Townley Holgate (Southampton), Ann Dowling (Cambridge), Janet Finch (Keele) and Bruce Brown (Brighton) as the panel chairs for the forthcoming Research Excellence Framework exercise (REF). The panels are likely to cover the life sciences, natural sciences, social sciences and arts and humanities. Within these panels, 30 to 40 sub-panels will do the serious work of assessing submissions.

Lessons Learnt from the Impact Pilot Study

As many of you will be aware, HEFCE have been running a pilot study to understand how the assessment of impact will work in the REF. It has involved 29 institutions. Here at the ARMA Conference, both HEFCE and some of the participants have been speaking about their experiences of the exercise, and what lessons have been learnt from it.

First, some basic parameters for the pilot study:

• Five units of assessment (UoAs) were focussed on:

1. Clinical medicine
2. Physics
3. Earth Systems
4. Social Work and Social Policy
5. English Literature and Language

• The assessment was based on a narrative and case studies, with 1 case study for every 10 Category A staff from RAE2008;
• There was a template for the case studies, which can be viewed here;
• Impacts were expected to have been felt between January 2005 – December 2009; based on ‘underpinning’ work of 2* quality or above that took place as far back as 1993;
• Impact was understood to mean ‘any identifiable benefit or positive influence on economic, social, public policy or services, cultural, environmental or quality of life.

From a universities point of view, their experience was as follows:

• ‘minimal initial interest’ from academics, and some of those that did express an interest did not have relevant experience of impact;
• The guidance was ambiguous, and it was unclear what the boundaries between inputs (‘which are not the focus of the assessment’) and outcomes were;
• The templates were unclear;
• It was difficult to gauge how some activities would be assessed or weighted by specific panels;
• There was a tendency in case studies for the attribution of impact to be stressed more than its significance;
• There was a desire to avoid claiming ‘mere’ knowledge transfer’, which led to an overly inhibited account of the contribution that the research had made to any impact;
• There was a relatively low level of appreciation of what counts as impact for the REF, and many academics talked of high impact journal, esteem indicators etc.
• There was a tendency to focus on recent activity by current members of staff with strategic potential. Were staff missing the opportunity to use ‘profitable’ previous research, which had had impact, but whose areas had subsequently become dormant?
• Difficulty of accessing external impact indicators – eg figures for attendance at events which academics participated in, etc.
  

From HEFCE’s perspective, some initial questions raised by the exercise included:

• How can the template be improved? For example, to ask for information in a different order;
• How can claims be corroborated?
• How should the impact narrative and case studies be weighted?
• How should the difference between public engagement and public benefit be differentiated?
• How can interim impact be assessed?
  

HEFCE have also been looking at the nuts and bolts of the systems for collecting REF data. Whilst most in the sector recognise that the 2008 system was better than its predecessors, there is still plenty of room for improvement, and they are looking at ways of getting around problems with – for example – formatting text, possibly by asking submitters to upload pdfs.
HEFCE will report back on the exercise formally in October 2010, when it will issue:

• Sub profile of each of the institutions that took part in the exercise;• A report from each panel;
• A report on the lessons learnt from the HEIs;
• A report from the impact workshops that HEFCE is undertaking.
  

The Sweeney Speaks: Citations, Timing, Impact

Following the publication of the response to the REF Consultation last week, David Sweeney, Demon Barber of Fleet Street and Director of Research at HEFCE, has been speaking frankly to the Times Higher. He told the magazine that HEFCE was 'edging out' of plans to use citations. He said that the costs to institutions of including such a measure could be high. He added that the council had also received an analysis suggesting that their use could disadvantage female staff.
'Equal opportunities is a problem that concerns us, so we are very nervous about the use of citations,' he explained. This did not mean that citation data were being ruled out once and for all, he said, but 'we will be discussing it closely with the panels before we give it any significant role'.

In addition he suggested that it was very likely that the REF assessment process would be delayed by a year. This would push the REF assessment to 2014 and REF-based funding to 2015.

Finally, he robustly defended the inclusion of impact in the face of criticism from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee last month. 'We will test the methodology and if it doesn't prove adequate then we will reconsider, but we remain confident that the issues can be surmounted,' Mr Sweeney said.

The full article's available here.

REF Consulation: Results Announced

HEFCE have announced the results of the REF consultation that took place over the winter. There's little change from their initial proposals, though HEFCE has recognised the concern that the sector has expressed over impact. It acknowledged the UCU petition challenging impact, but said that it was based on the Research Councils' understanding of impact (i.e. future impact rather than past). The use of citations will be left up to individual sub panels. Have a look at the HEFCE Press Release for more detail, or a summary in this RePro article.

Research Escapes the Cut

Last week it was announced that teaching would bear the brunt of the major cutbacks to the 2010-11 higher education budget. HEFCE stated that research funding will be increased by £32 million in the year ahead to just over £1.6 billion, a 2% increase on last year - i.e. a flat settlement in real terms. This compares well with the teaching budget, which was cut by 1.6%.

Elsewhere, Research Fortnight report that HEFCE unveiled the formula by which it will distribute quality research funding in the future: ' In cash terms the change is minimal, but it is a direct response to the government’s desire for greater concentration of research funding. As part of plans to distribute the cash amongst a smaller number of universities, Hefce will change the distribution of funding for 2*, 3* and 4* work, as judged by the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise. The old weightings of 1:3:7 will be changed to 1:3:9. The shift will benefit institutions that have a higher proportion of 4* research in the 2008 RAE. First estimates from the Research Fortnight Benchmarking application show Oxford and Cambridge gaining about £4m a year between them, a rise of about 3 per cent, with the losers scattered among the English members of the various university groupings.'

BA: Less would be More

The British Academy has posted its response to HEFCE's REF proposals. They're generally supportive of the process and the form of assessment, but think the percentage dedicated to Impact should be reduced from 25% to 15%, with the extra 10% being distributed between outputs and environment. They also make the point that humanities and social sciences rely more heavily on the block grant, so the REF needs to be fully aware of the needs of these disciplines, and the make up of the panels needs to reflect the sector, and not distort it or make it difficult for the panels to assess the work of the discipline. More detail of the response can be found here.

'Golden Age' of Funding Over

In a pronouncement that echoes Adam Tickell's ruminations on the 'Edwardian summer' we've lived through, Alan Langlands, HEFCE's chief, has said that the 'Golden age' of university funding is coming to an end. Cue Elgar's Cello Concerto and images of young tommies going over the top. At a meeting of university representatives on 20 November Langlands painted a gloomy picture of the future landscape. After years of growth and strong investment, the sector is now under fire from reduced spending, increased costs, and challenges from overseas. ' That strong position that helped us achieve all these results is now under challenge,' he said.