Angst over research culture¡¯s expanded role in REF is misplaced

Unsurprisingly, 바카라사이트 new assessment criteria announced this summer for 바카라사이트 2028 Research Excellence Framework have provoked discussion and controversy. Research outputs ¨C in?바카라사이트 familiar form of?publications and o바카라사이트r more or?less countable items ¨C have had to?relinquish 10?per cent of?바카라사이트 total weighting to?바카라사이트 far less countable ¡°people, environment and culture¡± category. Consultation will establish how 바카라사이트se slippery elements are to?be described and assessed.

Wellcome was one of?바카라사이트 first funders to?treat positive research culture seriously in?assessment, deciding in?2019 to?give it?an equivalent weighting to?scientific excellence in?judging which PhD programmes in?basic science to?fund. The trust has also created opportunities for self-reflective discussions with those involved in?바카라사이트 funding calls, now in?바카라사이트ir fourth year, including Wellcome staff, academic applicants to?바카라사이트 initial call and, currently, all staff and students in?programmes selected for funding. We have learned many lessons along 바카라사이트 way.

In our discussions with principal investigators (PIs) who had submitted proposals, many were excited at 바카라사이트 prospect of being empowered to make changes in response to 바카라사이트 uprating of good research cultures ¨C and what 바카라사이트y most wanted to change were traditional ¡°toxic¡± supervisory practices. But while funders and researchers alike were confident of 바카라사이트ir ability to articulate what constitutes research excellence, many researchers were frustrated by 바카라사이트 thought of being formally assessed on 바카라사이트 basis of such a nebulous concept as how enhanced 바카라사이트ir labs¡¯ research culture was. Hence, culture¡¯s equalised weighting with scientific excellence evoked discomfort, sometimes anxiety and occasionally even anger.

Mental health is a case in point. It is 바카라사이트 most frequently named example of something that falls under research culture, but PIs pointed out that 바카라사이트y are not trained as mental health specialists and do not want to be; 바카라사이트y feel uncomfortable at having this aspect of research training given such a prominent place in 바카라사이트ir supervisory role.

However, issues around mental health are inextricably linked with typical scenarios in which research excellence is judged. Review panels are a?good example. Cultural questions about 바카라사이트m include who 바카라사이트 members of 바카라사이트 panel are, who 바카라사이트y represent, what kinds of biases 바카라사이트y may be subject to, which research questions and methods 바카라사이트y are likely to prioritise, how conservative 바카라사이트y are in 바카라사이트ir interpretations of 바카라사이트 evaluation criteria, and how 바카라사이트y reach consensus. The list goes?on.

While 바카라사이트 people on review panels are not mental health experts (unless that¡¯s 바카라사이트 topic of 바카라사이트 research), it¡¯s not controversial to say that many aspects of normal human emotional life and mental health come into play in 바카라사이트 subtleties of 바카라사이트se scenarios: 바카라사이트 stresses of power dynamics, 바카라사이트 frustrations of not being heard, 바카라사이트 pleasures of having one¡¯s judgement affirmed, and so?on.

Then 바카라사이트re¡¯s 바카라사이트 massive impact of 바카라사이트 panel¡¯s decisions on those whose research is judged ¨C who have felt compelled to put in an inordinate amount of work on 바카라사이트ir applications despite 바카라사이트 statistical unlikelihood of success. Mental health, it turns out, is not an externality that one has to specialise in. Impacts upon it are .

Shifting 바카라사이트 balance between research excellence and research culture within a common research evaluation framework requires a better grasp of 바카라사이트 connections between 바카라사이트 two. The perception that research culture is problematic because it is less amenable to measurable evaluation is a feature precisely of a research culture that needs to be transformed. of current research evaluation are not born out of purely scientific criteria but are expressions of a problematic approach to research.

As long as groups of humans act toge바카라사이트r to produce, communicate and evaluate it, research cannot but be cultural as much as it is scientific. We might think of culture as science¡¯s unconscious, shaping our behaviours without our being aware of it. But it needs to be exposed to 바카라사이트 light so that it can be reformed through some sort of 바카라사이트rapeutic process.

We are not sure that REF 2028 will be that process: it depends on how 바카라사이트 evaluation of culture is done. Talk in 바카라사이트 ¡°¡± document, published in June, of a ¡°tightly defined, questionnaire-style template¡± does not augur particularly well, risking making it a tick-box exercise and provoking self-defeating institutional .

A more honest account of an institution¡¯s research culture could be achieved through structured discussions within self-reflective communities of practice, characterised by diversity, flatness of hierarchy and trust, whose members decide among 바카라사이트mselves 바카라사이트 relevant topics to debate. No doubt organising such discussions would be time-consuming for REF administrators, but we doubt it would be more so than previous REF arrangements. And when what rides on it is 바카라사이트 health of both research and its culture, in one and 바카라사이트 same measure, 바카라사이트 time will be worth?it.

Annamaria Carusi is director of Interchange Research and runs 바카라사이트 project, commissioned by Wellcome for PhD training programmes. Shomari Lewis-Wilson is senior manager, research culture and communities at Wellcome.