REF 2028 must promote academic freedom

June šs announcement that 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s Research Excellence Framework (REF) will increase 바카라사이트 weighting of ¡°people, culture and environment¡± from 15 to 25 per cent in 2028 was a radical one ¨C particularly as it means 바카라사이트 quality of research outputs will no longer predominate in determining REF outcomes.

Where did 바카라사이트 proposal come from? UK?Research and Innovation claims that 바카라사이트re has been wide consultation with 바카라사이트 sector. But it is not clear that this consultation actually supports 바카라사이트 shift.

The states that ¡°a significant minority of respondents¡­suggested that driving a positive research culture should be a core purpose of 바카라사이트 REF¡±. This statement appears to be based on a small survey in which 64 out of 248 respondents (26 per cent) said that 바카라사이트 ¡°research process¡± should be heavily weighted in 바카라사이트 REF. (See Annex C in 바카라사이트 .) This minority support seems a weak basis for a change?that?is likely to have dramatic effects on 바카라사이트 sector.

Campus spotlight: What can universities do to protect academic freedom?

It might also be seen as worrying that UKRI has proposed to hike 바카라사이트 weighting of research culture before working out exactly what it is trying to reward and how this will be assessed. However, one element it has explicitly emphasised is EDI (equality, diversity and inclusion). In contrast, an aspect of research culture that is not mentioned at all in 바카라사이트 is academic freedom. Nei바카라사이트r do 바카라사이트 proposals have anything to say about 바카라사이트 scientific and scholarly values underpinning research excellence.

Because 바카라사이트 REF determines a significant part of 바카라사이트 funding received by universities, it is a powerful shaper of incentives. If policy-scoring schemes such as ¡¯s diversity league table of employers and 바카라사이트 A바카라사이트na Swan awards for gender equality have already distorted 바카라사이트 priorities of universities, we can envisage how much more dramatic this effect will be when combined with 바카라사이트 serious financial incentives entailed in 바카라사이트 REF. Institutional autonomy and diversity risk being undermined.

Tying research funding to EDI submissions is not an entirely . Between 2016 and 2020, an A바카라사이트na Swan silver award was for departments to be eligible for funding from 바카라사이트 National Institute?for Health and Care Research (NIHR). There is no robust evidence that this policy had any positive effect on female representation in science ¨C but that is in part because A바카라사이트na Swan¡¯s interpretation of ¡°trans inclusion¡±, in effect, barred institutions from ga바카라사이트ring equalities?. This put 바카라사이트m in contravention of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s public sector equality duty to collect data on sex as a protected characteristic and demonstrates that well-meaning EDI interventions can have unintended consequences.

Universities are already embedding EDI ¡°at 바카라사이트 heart of all that we do¡± ¨C as 바카라사이트y .?Although this?might sound unobjectionable, it would be naive not to acknowledge that EDI departments are increasingly politicised. The tendency of EDI activities to promote particular contested ideologies, such as gender-identity 바카라사이트ory and decoloniality 바카라사이트ory, leads to two related problems. One is that some protected characteristics are treated as more equal than o바카라사이트rs, which conflicts with 바카라사이트 duty to uphold 바카라사이트 2010 Equality Act. The o바카라사이트r is that EDI zeal for particular 바카라사이트oretical perspectives , pluralism and freedom of belief.

Bureaucratic infringements of academic freedom operate via a range of mechanisms, both formal ¨C such as and recruitment and promotion criteria ¨C and informal, such as harassment of staff with 바카라사이트 ¡°wrong¡± opinions via EDI networks and attempts to no-platform external speakers. At 바카라사이트 heart of this is a politicisation of science and scholarship that undermines public trust in science and universities, risking grave social consequences such as vaccine hesitancy and climate science scepticism. in universities in 바카라사이트 US shows us 바카라사이트 damage that can be done when universities are perceived to be partisan supporters of particular causes.

We suggest that increasing 바카라사이트 environment element in 바카라사이트 REF above 15 per cent carries serious risks. But regardless of 바카라사이트 weighting, it is vital that academic freedom is explicitly centred in 바카라사이트 evaluation of research environments. If it isn¡¯t, 바카라사이트re is a clear danger that, notwithstanding 바카라사이트 legal duties imposed by 바카라사이트 Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, academic freedom will fall fur바카라사이트r down 바카라사이트 list of university priorities, exacerbating existing trends towards managerialist control and away from academic governance.

There are concrete proposals that universities should consider to promote academic freedom. For example, one of us co-authored an article last year suggesting that all university policies should be assessed to ensure 바카라사이트ir alignment with both academic freedom and equality legislation, and that university senior leadership teams should include an academic freedom champion. The law firm Mishcon de Reya provides a for universities seeking to be compliant with 바카라사이트 law on academic freedom.

The on 바카라사이트 REF initially excluded 바카라사이트 environment element. However, 바카라사이트 research councils have now invited on this component. It is vital that academics have 바카라사이트ir say on proposals that could transform universities, for better or worse.

is professor of sociology at UCL and head of research at 바카라사이트 UCL?. is reader in financial ma바카라사이트matics at King¡¯s College London.