Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

REF 2014 and the Business & Management community

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "REF 2014 and the Business & Management community"— Presentation transcript:

1 REF 2014 and the Business & Management community
Mike Pidd Chair: sub-panel C19 (Business & Mgt Studies) Department of Management Science Lancaster University Management School UK

2 Overview Purposes of the REF (the Research Excellence Framework)
REF versus RAE 2008 Panels Staffing Outputs Environment Impact Timetable You can always blame the REF

3 REF purposes: official statement
FUNDING: inform research funding allocations by the four UK HE funding bodies (approximately £2 billion per year) ACCOUNTABILITY: for public funding of research so as to demonstrate its benefits QUALITY INDICATORS: provide benchmarks and reputational yardsticks

4 REF principles: official statement
Expert, peer review panels Equity: all types of research and forms of output across all disciplines shall be assessed on an equal basis Equality: HEIs encouraged to submit the work of all their excellent researchers Transparency: assessment criteria and procedures, and outcomes to be published in full

5 Nossex Business School
RAE 2008: how did it work? Research outputs: 4 per person (70%) Peer review Research environment (20%) Esteem & impact indicators (10%) e.g. Research income PhD students Staff development Quality profile Weighted and aggregated across each submission Nossex Business School Quality level 4* 3* 2* 1* u/c % research activity 10 40 35 15

6 Nossex Business School
REF 2014: how will it work? Research outputs: 4 per person (65%) Peer review Research environment (15%) Impact (20%) Spot the differences e.g. Research income PhD students Staff development Quality profile Weighted and aggregated across each submission Nossex Business School Quality level 4* 3* 2* 1* u/c % research activity 21 38 37 4

7 Overview of REF assessment framework
Overall quality Outputs Maximum of 4 outputs per researcher Impact Template and case studies Environment Template and data 65% 20% 15%

8 Key changes since RAE 2008 Includes assessment of impact
Removed esteem as a distinct element Structured approach to research environment Fewer UOAs/panels operating more consistently Only 4 main panels (main panel C for BMS) No separate panel for Accounting & Finance Strengthened equality and diversity measures Revised eligibility criteria for staff Some UOAs will make (limited) use of citation data ... But not in BMS (C19) Increased ‘user’ input on panels; and an integrated role for additional assessors Publication of overall quality profiles in 1% steps

9 Panels and sub-panels

10 REF 2014: roles of panels MAIN Panel C
Panel criteria & working methods Oversight during assessment process Consistent application of overall assessment standards Sign off final profiles SUB-PANEL C19: Business & management studies Limited, specific variations in criteria & working methods Conduct the assessment Recommend final profiles Add extra assessors & users during 2012/13

11 Structure of main panel C: REF 2014
UK academic members (sub-panel Chairs): Janet Finch Chair Manchester/Keele Cara Aitcheson Sports-related studies Edinburgh Hastings Donnon Anthropology & dev studies Queens Belfast Gillian Douglas Law Cardiff Colin Hay Politics & int studies Sheffield Peter Neary Economics etc Oxford Alan Penn Architecture, built env & planning UCL Mike Pidd Business & mgt studies Lancaster Andrew Pollard Education Inst for Education Keith Richards Geog, env studies & archaeology Cambridge John Scott Sociology Plymouth Peter Taylor Gooby Social work & social policy Kent

12 Structure of main panel C: REF 2014
International and user members Trevor Barnes Geography UBC Frans Berkhout Innovation & sustainability VU Amsterdam Francois Borguignon Economics Paris School of Economics (prev Chief Econ, World Bank) Paul Finch Architecture & planning Commission for the Built Environment Herbert Kritzer Law & politics Univ Minnesota Jone Pearce Business & mgt studies UC Irvine Mark Robson Various Bank of England Sue Rossiter Education NFER Martin Walsh Charity sector Oxfam Paul Wiles Social work & social policy Oxford (formerly Home Office) Sharon Witherspoon Social policy Nuffield Foundation

13 Sub-panel C19: business & mgt studies
Mike Pidd1 Lancaster Chair & member of Main Panel C John Arnold Sheffield Martin Laffin Durham Jan Bebbington St Andrews Alan Marsden Ex-Arup David Blackaby2 Swansea Kathrin Moeslin Erlangen-Nuremberg Jane Broadbent3 Roehampton Peter Naude Manchester Robert Blackburn Kingston Andy Neely Cambridge/Cranfield Chris Brooks Reading Caroline Oades ACCA Colin Eden Strathclyde Richard Thorpe Leeds Paul Edwards Birmingham Ian Tonks Bath Guy Fitzgerald Brunel Caroline Tynan Nottingham Keith Glaister Terry Williams Hull Mark Jenkins Cranfield Hugh Willmott Cardiff 2: Joint with Economics sub-panel 3: Deputy Chair

14 Staff eligibility & other rules

15 Staff: Eligibility & requirements
Category A staff Academic staff with a contract of at least 0.2 FTE, on payroll of the HEI 31 Oct 2013 primary employment function of either ‘research only’ or ‘teaching and research’ Category C staff: Employed by an organisation other than an HEI Have contract or job role including research, Research primarily focused in the submitting unit on 31 Oct 2013 Will contribute to the quality profile but not volume for funding Research assistants are only eligible by exception Institutions MUST produce an Equality & Diversity Code Four outputs per person unless special circumstances

16 Staff: Individual circumstances
Reduced # outputs allowed Clearly defined (rules) Qualified as ECR Part-timers Maternity, paternity or adoption leave Secondments of career breaks outside HE Complex (EDAP) Disability Ill health or injury Mental health conditions Constraints relating to pregnancy or maternity in addition to maternity leave Childcare or other caring responsibilities Gender reassignment Other circumstances relating to characteristics protected by the Equality Act 2010

17 Output tariffs: individual circumstances
Early career researchers Date at which the individual first met the definition of an ECR: Outputs may be reduced by up to: Between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2010 1 Between 1 August 2010 and 31 July 2011 2 After 1 August 2011 3 Part-timers and career breaks Equiv months absent from work (1 Jan 2008 to 31 Oct 2013): For part-time staff, average FTE worked (1 Jan 2008 to 31 Oct 2013): Outputs may be reduced by up to: 14 – 27.99 0.601 – 0.8 1 28 – 48.99 0.301 – 0.6 2 49 or more 0.3 or less 3 NOTE: % availability need not be same as % used in Volume calculation

18 Other individual circumstances
Maternity, paternity & adoption Outputs may be reduced by 1 for each period of statutory leave over the REF period. Also by 1 for each extra period of such leave lasting 4 months or more. Complex circumstances REF EDAP (Equality & Diversity Advisory Panel) Recommend any reductions to main panel Chair, who will decide on any reductions Sub-panels Must abide by main panel Chair’s decision Will not be told of the circumstances

19 Outputs

20 Eligibility of outputs
Must be a product of research (see REF defn) All forms of output are welcome and will be treated equally Into public domain between 1/1/08 and 31/12/13 BUT may include pre-published work (e.g. online first or working paper if (and only if) Pre-published in 2007 but in print form after 1/1/08 Not included in RAE 2008.

21 Co-authored outputs Recognised to be increasing as collaboration grows in Main Panel C disciplines Where outputs are co-authored/produced, submitting author expected to have made a substantial contribution Sub-panels wish to receive the fullest picture of a submitting HEI’s research, hence Co-authored/produced outputs may be submitted twice in the same UOA by the same HEI MUST be accompanied by a statement explaining the substantial and distinctive contribution of each of the submitting authors Still unclear about pre-published, co-authored work if not used by submitting author/institution in RAE 2008.

22 Double weighted outputs
May be requested for outputs of extended scale & scope MUST have supporting statement Sub-panels will assess the request separately from its quality If accepted: counts for 2 items 1 reserve allowed for each double weighing request

23 Environment

24 Environment assessment criteria
Vitality: reflects the existence of a thriving, dynamic and fully participatory research culture based on a clearly articulated research strategy, displayed both within the submitting unit and in its wider contributions, and in terms appropriate to the scale and diversity of the research activity that it supports  Sustainability: understood in terms of the extent to which it is capable in the future of continuing to support and develop such research activity as defined in the quality levels, both within the submitted unit and the discipline more generally

25 Research environment: 2 aspects
Narrative (template) with 5 sections Overview Research strategy Staffing strategy & development, including research students Income, infrastructure & facilities Collaboration & contribution to the discipline Quantitative data: based on HESA stats: e.g. doctoral degrees, income ...

26 Impact

27 Impact defined An effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia Includes an effect, change or benefit to: The activity, attitude, awareness, behaviour, capacity, opportunity, performance, policy, practice, process or understanding Of an audience, beneficiary, community, constituency, organisation or individuals In any geographic location whether locally, regionally, nationally or internationally Excludes impacts on research or the advancement of academic knowledge within HE; and impacts on teaching or other activities within the submitting HEI

28 Examples of impact: main panel C
Impacts on: Examples: Creativity, culture and society Enhancements to heritage preservation, conservation and presentation Shaping or informing public attitudes and values Economy, commerce or organisations Improved products, processes or workplace practices Enhanced corporate social responsibility policies Environment Changes in public awareness or behaviour Business operations have been changed to achieve environmental objectives Health and welfare Development of policy or practice with regard to health services or social care provision Practitioners and professional services Influence on professional standards, guidelines or training Practitioner debate has been stimulated by research findings Public policy, law and services Legislative change or effect on legal practice Influence on policy (by government, NGO or private organisation) Impact on democratic participation or access to justice

29 Research impact submission & criteria
Impact template How is impact facilitated? Context, approach(es) to impact, strategies & plans, relation to case studies Impact case 1 Impact case 2 Impact case 3 Impact case 4 Impact case n CRITERIA Reach: understood in terms of the extent and diversity of the communities, environments, individuals, organisations or any other beneficiaries that have benefitted from or been affected (not geographic, but relative to potential domain) Significance: understood in terms of the degree to which the impact has enriched, influenced, informed or changed policies, opportunities, perspectives or practices of communities, individuals or organisations

30 Impact cases Maximum of 4 pages per case.
Must demonstrate that the unit’s research made a distinctive contribution to the impact claimed during the REF period 1/1/08 to 31/12/13 Evidence for the impact claimed must be cited May include qualitative, quantitative or material Should be independently verifiable wherever possible Case studies should not describe activity alone, but should make clear links between activity and impact claimed Research on which claimed impact is based Must have taken place at the submitting HEI Should meet the definition of 2* (internationally recognised) Underpinning research published since January 1993

31 REF 2014 Timetable 2011 2012 2013 2014 Panels appointed (Feb)
Guidance on submissions (Jul) Draft panel criteria for consultation (Jul) 2012 Final panel criteria and methods (Jan) HEIs submit codes of practice (Jul) Pilot of submission system (Sep) Requests for multiple submissions (by Dec) Survey of submission intentions (Dec) 2013 Launch REF submissions system Recruit additional assessors Staff census date (31 Oct) Submissions deadline (29 Nov) 2014 Panels assess submissions Publish outcomes (Dec)

32 REF 2014: important dates Date Significance 31/12/13
End of REF period for outputs, impact template & cases and research underpinning impact 29/11/13 Submissions due 31/10/13 Census date for staff 31/7/13 End of REF period for research students, research income & environment 01/01/08 Start of REF period for outputs, environment & impact template & cases 01/01/93 Start of period for research underpinning impact

33 Questions & discussion

34 Likely sub-panel workloads (based on 2008)
FTE staff/member 16 Architecture & planning 45 17 Geography & architecture 67 18 Economics & econometrics 47 19 Business & management studies 159 20 Law 100 21 Politics 62 22 Social work & social policy 50 23 Sociology 24 Anthropology & development studies 31 25 Education 81 26 Sports-related studies 38 Source: REF team

35 HEFCE QR Funding weighting
4* 3* 2* 1* 09/10 based on RAE 2008 7 3 1 11/12 based on RAE 2008 9 0.294 Based on REF 2014 ? Distinct possibility that QR weighting for 2* will be zero after 2014

36 Structure of main panel I: RAE 2008
34: Economics & econometrics (David Greenaway, Nottingham) 35: Accounting & finance (Andy Stark, MBS) David Blackaby Main panel I: Chair David Otley Jane Broadbent 36: Business & management (Mike Pidd, Lancaster) Ray Paul 37: Library and information mgt (John Feather, Loughborough) Sub-panels did the work Main panel had oversight


Download ppt "REF 2014 and the Business & Management community"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google