Axed staff on submissions leaves bad taste as REF deadline passes

Academics say its ‘unethical’ for universities to profit from work done by researchers who have since lost their jobs

April 1, 2021
Fired man carrying box
Source: iStock

Scholars have said it is “unethical” that universities have submitted the work of academics who are facing redundancy or have lost their jobs into the UK’s next research excellence framework (REF).

A rule change for the 2021 REF – the submission deadline for which was on 31 March – allowed institutions to submit outputs from staff who had been made redundant, as long as they were employed on 31 July last year, the census date for the evaluation. Institutions were required to submit at least one output from every academic with “significant responsibility for research”.

However, there has been a slew of redundancies across the UK sector since the census date, after coronavirus wreaked havoc with institutional finances.

The rule change was condemned by academics at the time, especially as research funding bodies had originally proposed prohibiting submitting work from fired researchers for fear of creating “potential negative incentives”. Yet, in guidelines published in 2019, funders said it would be impossible to tell who had left on bad terms – the end of a fixed-term contract counts as a redundancy, for example – and scrapped the plan.

ADVERTISEMENT

One academic at the University of Leicester said that until recently the institution had supported their research and used it as a REF impact case study. They had now been told that their area was “no longer a strategic priority” and placed at risk of redundancy.

“It feels very cynical, to make the decision to use all that material for the REF and afterwards to change direction and to make redundancies,” the academic said.

ADVERTISEMENT

A Leicester spokesman said that year all “eligible staff must be submitted to the university’s return” and therefore all staff employed by the university up until 31 July 2020 had to be submitted.

David Whyte, vice-president of the University and College Union branch at the University of Liverpool, said that it was “unethical” to not only make people unemployed during the pandemic but also to “essentially use them to generate revenue after they’ve gone”. REF results are used to inform the allocation of quality-related research funding.

At Liverpool, 47 research jobs are set to go from the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences. A university spokesman said that “no outputs were returned for any members of staff who were made redundant during the REF period and all staff with responsibility for research were included in the REF return”.

At the University of Roehampton, there have been at least 60 voluntary redundancies, with the arts and humanities bearing the heaviest burden.

One Roehampton academic who took redundancy said staffing decisions based on finance had led to “two or three really highly rated research units” getting “heavily stripped down”.

“People were hired by the university for their research, but now the university’s commitment to sustaining people’s careers has disappeared. It’s pretty damning that our forms of research assessment simply don’t punish that kind of behaviour,” they said.

Roehampton said that its policy for submitting staff to the REF followed national guidance. “We have written to all individuals whose research has been included in our submission to inform them,” the university said.

anna.mckie@timeshighereducation.com

POSTSCRIPT:

Print headline: Profit from axed staff ‘unethical’

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Register
Please Login or Register to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (4)

I don't wish to be too cyncical but I do find the idea that, by employing researchers, universities are somehow committing to "sustaining people’s careers" just a litlle naive. At best they are investing in research capacity but in many cases they are simply buying existing outputs. The failure of HEFCE /government to address this issue in the current REF guidance has created an (overblown) transfer market, which is now in decline. Is there anyone in HE who did not predict this?
Should a company go into production based on the R&D output of a redundant scientist?
REF is so broken and that it's a complete joke.
"At best they are investing in research capacity but in many cases they are simply buying existing outputs." It is more of the latter than the former. Capacity building takes time so requires a long term view. What is the shelf-life of an average head of school? REF has fostered a breed of rent seekers and other fair wealther types. With enough funds and brutality anyone can build a top ranked institution on a short-term basis. What people fail to appreciate is that enduring world class institutions have evolved and developed over a long time on solid foundations and that is reflected in their ethos and work culture, they are not just cobbeled together by "buying" different assets and throwing them together. Indeed the best institutions in the world are so not because of any alphabet soup that you might come up with.

Sponsored

ADVERTISEMENT