Definitions of quality levels Four starQuality that is world leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour. Three starQuality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour but which nonetheless falls short of the highest standard of excellence. Two starQuality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour. One starQuality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour. UnclassifiedQuality that falls below the standard of nationally recognised. Or which does not meet the published definition of research for the purpose of this assessment
Summary of outcomes in 2008 showing relative positions of each submission nationally and in comparison with 2001
Sociology and Media & Comms are both in the top 10% of submissions nationally Sociology retains top position on most indices, tying with three other submissions Art, Design, and Psychology submissions are in the top third nationally Drama and Music are in the upper half PARTICULAR SUCCESSES …
Computing, Visual Cultures (History of Art) and Psychology submissions were all clear risers Art and Design (separate submissions) and Educational Studies slipped somewhat History and Art Psychotherapy (Allied Health Professions) showed pronounced drops Politics and Social Policy & Social Work were entered for the first time in 2008 Comparing outcomes in RAE2008 against RAE2001 ….
Percentages of activity rated 4* varies substantially between different panels (e.g. from 9% for Allied Health Professions to 24% for Music) – this limits comparability of profiles across UoAs Activity reflects a combination of outputs, esteem indicators and research environment. Different panels weighted these differently, and also appear to have adopted different approaches to profiling. Some submissions gained very impressive research environment and/or esteem indicator scores which contributed very substantially to their aggregate activity profiles (e.g. Sociology, Anthropology, Art, Design, Media & Comms) Some general observations …
Identify factors contributing to relatively weak performance in departments whose outcomes were disappointing Focus on research environment issues – what can we do to share and develop (or effectively describe) good practice? Maintain high levels of awareness of how the Research Excellence Framework is developing in order to inform strategies both centrally and at departmental levels – e.g. via a Departmental Research Committee network … and action plans
Timetable for introducing the Research Excellence Framework (REF) Spring 2008 to Summer 2009 - Undertake pilot of bibliometric indicators. Develop proposals for other aspects of the REF across all subjects. -Expert Advisory Groups meet to advise us on our proposals. -Assess the impact of our proposals in terms of equality and diversity, sustainability and regulatory burden. Autumn 2009 Consult on all main features of the REF including operational details of the bibliometrics process, use of other quantitative indicators, subject boundaries and procedures for expert review. Early 2010 Announce outcomes and next steps following consultation. Establish expert panels for all subjects. Calendar year 2010 Undertake bibliometrics assessment (developmental). Consult on choice and use of assessment components for each subject group. 2011 to 2013 Gradual introduction of REF elements leading to full implementation. 2014-15 HEFCE research funding for all subjects driven by REF from this time onwards.