Burden of research excellence framework ‘outweighs the benefits’

Many UK academics believe that the research excellence framework has deterred them from pursuing novel or “authentic” scholarship, according to a major survey.

In a survey of nearly 2,000 scholars conducted for a major assessment of the REF, commissioned by Research England, scholars were significantly more likely to say that it had decreased the novelty of their research over the past four years than increased it, suggesting that the need to produce highly regarded “outcomes” made academics less likely to pursue blue-sky research with unpredictable results.

The same applied for the authenticity of research – work reflecting the intellectual interests of academics or the wider scholarly community – although in both cases respondents were most likely to say that the REF had had neither a negative nor a positive impact.

Respondents also indicated that the REF had encouraged them to adopt open research practices and to increase the quantity of their research output. They said that it had also helped to foster interdisciplinary research and research of public relevance.

Asked how the REF had affected their broader research community over the past four years, academics gave similar responses, but were most likely to say that it had led to increased “game playing” in research – such as staff recruitment or embellishment of impact with an eye on the exercise – with more than three-quarters of respondents feeling this way.

The report, produced by the not-for-profit research organisation Rand Europe, says the results highlight “a disconnect between the perceived impact [of the REF] on others and the real influence individuals perceive on themselves”.

It adds that respondents were broadly positive about changes made to the REF for the 2021 exercise, for example, requiring all research-active staff to be submitted.

However, the report continues, the majority of respondents “reported that the detrimental qualities of the REF are negative for them and that, overall, the REF has a negative influence on UK researchers”.

Respondents from research-intensive universities and arts and humanities disciplines felt most strongly about the negative influence of the REF.

“The big driver of negative attitudes is the burden of the exercise, and specifically that the burden is perceived to outweigh the benefits,” the report says, adding that there was a “lack of understanding among academics…of what the REF is trying to achieve”.

However, the report adds, the “negative perceptions of the REF may also in part be driven by how institutions and individual academics interpret the REF rules and the processes institutions put in place to implement these rules. Throughout our focus groups, we found a lot of misconceptions of what was and was not allowed in the REF, as well as ‘myths’ through which academics misinterpret the REF and its rules.”

The results of the 2021 REF are due to be published in May 2022. The results of the Rand Europe report – also known as “The Real-Time REF Review” – will be used shape future rounds of the exercise.

chris.havergal@timeshighereducation.com