REF Information Session August Research Excellence Framework (REF)

REF 2014 A process to assess research excellence across higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK Previously known as Research Assessment Exercise: first took place in 1986, then at about 5-6 year intervals Next submission due in late 2013; with results announced in

Used to inform funding allocations for research (QR grant) main grant from SFC, University of Aberdeen: £23.6M research (30.6% of £77M total grant) Also- reputational value 3 REF- Why is it important?

Peer reviewed exercise (researchers and research users) 4 main panels covering 36 units of assessment (broad research areas), assessing: – Outputs – Environment –Impact 4 REF What is it?

Quality Profile Weightings applied to the three elements: Outputs:65% Environment:15% Impact:20% 5

Outputs 6 Wide variety of types of selected outputs Normally 4 per researcher Tariff of reductions for special circumstances and Early Career Researchers In public domain between and

Outputs 7 4*3*2*1*Unclassified World leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour Internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour but falls short of the highest standards of excellence Recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour Recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour Falls below standard of nationally recognised work or does not meet the definition of research

REF 2014: Impact –All kinds of social, economic and cultural benefits and impacts beyond academia during the period 1 January 2008 to 31 July 2013, arising from excellent research –Submitted impacts may be at any stage of development or maturity, so long as some change or benefit beyond academia has taken place during the assessment period 8

Impact- what it is not ! Future or potential impact. Academic impact (eg citations etc) Public engagement or dissemination activities alone Related to an individual- it’s the research group Related purely to research done at previous employer- some of the work must have been done at submitting institution 9

REF 2014: Impact Impact assessed in terms of: Significance – how much difference the research made to the beneficiaries Reach – how widely felt the impact was (not necessarily in terms of geographic spread) Must be able to provide evidence 10

REF 2014 A selective exercise: institutions are invited to present their best research, not all of their research 11

REF 2014 How will we select staff for submission? Key principles of selection process: Transparency Consistency Accountability Inclusivity 12

Institutional Code of Practice Approved through the formal committee structure Received approval by Court on 5 December 2011 Approved by the Equality and Diversity Advisory Panel (EDAP) and the Scottish Funding Council in July 2012

Collective decision making – REF Steering Group All inclusion decisions will be made by the REF Steering Group, on recommendations by the College REF Groups All decisions on individual circumstances will be made by the REF Steering Group following consideration of anonymised applications (for complex circumstances)

Inclusion decisions Eligibility Number of outputs Quality of outputs

Eligibility for inclusion Academic staff with a contract of employment of 0.2 FTE or greater and on the payroll of the submitting HEI on the census date (31 October 2013) Primary employment function is to undertake either ‘research only’ or ‘teaching and research ’

Who does this include? Staff who hold joint institutional/NHS appointments (subject to general eligibility criteria) Pensioned staff (subject to general eligibility criteria) Staff on unpaid leave or secondment contracted to return to their posts within 2 years Staff based abroad as long as the submitting HEI can demonstrate that the primary focus of their research activity on the census date is clearly and directly connected to the submitting unit based in the UK Plus some others (see para. 78 e – f of framework document)

Ineligible staff Staff on teaching only contracts (teaching fellows) Research assistants and research fellows, unless they meet the criteria for independent researchers

Quality of outputs Combined estimated quality profiles from internal and external reviews (where available) No minimum threshold defined in Code of Practice; guidance for September reviews is minimum of 2,2,3,3 (with a view to submit better outputs on census date)

Number of outputs Dependent on individual staff circumstances Defined as circumstances ‘that have significantly constrained their ability to produce four outputs or to work productively throughout the assessment period’ (para. 88 of Guidance Framework )

Staff circumstances process Invitation to staff to submit individual staff circumstances has been issued, and will be repeated at several points during the REF preparation period All applications will be handled centrally as indicated, and brought to the REF Steering Group for a final decision on the reductions

Early Career Researchers ECRs are defined as members of staff who meet the Category A or C definition on census date and who started their career as independent researchers on or after 1 August That means that they first undertook independent research, leading or acting as principal investigator or equivalent on a research grant or significant piece of research work on or after 1 August 2009.

Early career researchers Not eligible to be returned as ECRs are: Staff who acted as independent researchers in previous employment (HEI, business, or other organisation in UK or elsewhere) before 1 August 2009 with a contract of 0.2 FTE or more Staff who met the ECR definition before 1 August 2009, and have since had a career outside HE or career break and have since returned to research Research assistants

RAE 2008 context Total submitted:584.5 FTE Research Fellows:40 FTE Staff with individual staff circumstances:130 of which ECRs:116 Other:14* *including maternity leave

Appeals process Expressly rules out any appeals based on disagreements on the grounds of the assessment made about the quality or excellence of the research outputs Appeals on other grounds, such as process, or insufficient weight being given to individual staff circumstances may arise

REF 2014 Further information available from: Professor Phil Hannaford Marlis Barraclough