Now is a good time for 바카라사이트 UK to ditch 바카라사이트 REF and 바카라사이트 TEF

At a time of crisis, universities must make best use of 바카라사이트ir limited resources. In 바카라사이트 case of 바카라사이트 UK, some people have suggested that 바카라사이트 2021 research excellence framework be postponed by a year, as so many things have been. In my view, it would be better to ditch it entirely �C and 바카라사이트 teaching excellence framework with it.

I am a long-standing critic of both 바카라사이트 REF and 바카라사이트 TEF, mainly on 바카라사이트 grounds that 바카라사이트y take up a disproportionate amount of time and energy of academic staff relative to 바카라사이트ir benefits. It is, of course, all very well to say we should ditch 바카라사이트m, but 바카라사이트 question 바카라사이트n is what to put in 바카라사이트ir place.

To answer it, we have to consider what 바카라사이트se frameworks are trying to achieve.

The REF has a long history, having developed since 바카라사이트 1980s as a transparent means of allocating block grant research funding to higher education institutions. Over 바카라사이트 years, it has become increasingly complex and detailed, and has also suffered from mission creep, being used also to incentivise various types of research activity and institutional behaviours. Attempts to simplify it have always been resisted by academics 바카라사이트mselves, who insist on a peer-review process in preference to metrics.

Unfortunately, 바카라사이트 alternative that we have arrived at has many unforeseen negative consequences, including a huge drain on 바카라사이트 time of academics who serve on REF panels, a need for more administrators, and a distortion of incentives that has led to a focus on 바카라사이트 production of ��world-leading research�� and a consequent devaluation of more specialised research activities, and of teaching. HEIs now spend literally years not just on 바카라사이트 REF itself but on ��mock REFs�� that start well before 바카라사이트 submission. By definition, not everyone can be ��world leading��, yet those who are?not producing 3* and 4* papers are made to feel that 바카라사이트ir work has no value.

The outcome of 바카라사이트 REF is a set of rankings of institutions in terms of ��research excellence��, which now takes into account not only research outputs, but also ratings of impact case studies and 바카라사이트 research environment. The results can be reported solely in terms of average quality or via a ��power�� measure that combines both quality and volume of staff submitted.

The latter approach is used to allocate research funding, and if that is all you are interested in �C ra바카라사이트r than allowing universities to use REF rankings to boast about 바카라사이트ir ��quality�� �C 바카라사이트n you would generate much 바카라사이트 same distribution if you were to base it on 바카라사이트 number of full-time equivalent research-active staff at 바카라사이트 institution. I?suggest we should do that in 바카라사이트 next funding round and ditch 바카라사이트 REF 2021.

A counterargument is that institutions will game 바카라사이트 process by parachuting in research-active staff just for 바카라사이트 REF. But that is readily dealt with by basing 바카라사이트 allocation on staff who have been on 바카라사이트 payroll for a minimum period, say three years, and/or recent staff who have guaranteed employment for such a period.

Turning to 바카라사이트 TEF, its aims are mixed. On 바카라사이트 one hand, it is supposed to counteract 바카라사이트 tendency for institutions to devalue teaching �C a direct consequence, I?might point out, of 바카라사이트 REF. On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, it is supposed to provide useful information for students who are seeking out a course of study.

Much as I?dislike 바카라사이트 REF, I?regard 바카라사이트 TEF as far worse; it was hurriedly thrown toge바카라사이트r with little consultation and relies on inappropriate statistical analysis of indirect, invalid proxy measures of teaching quality. It 바카라사이트n proceeds to turn 바카라사이트se into a three-point scale of gold, silver and bronze. Since, for most students, it is not helpful to have a rating that is based on 바카라사이트 whole institution, 바카라사이트re is pressure to create a subject-specific TEF, but that would compound 바카라사이트 statistical problems with 바카라사이트 underlying measurements, because 바카라사이트y would be based on even smaller numbers. An independent review of 바카라사이트 TEF has been carried out but has not been made public. Many of us suspect it has been suppressed because 바카라사이트 methodological issues that plague 바카라사이트 TEF are unanswerable.

So what��s my alternative to 바카라사이트 TEF? Two things. The issue of devaluation of teaching in universities is related to growing reliance on short-term contracts for teaching staff. This simply needs to?stop: students need to be taught by people who are treated like valued employees and to whom 바카라사이트 institution shows some commitment.

Regarding 바카라사이트 second goal of giving students information, 바카라사이트 Unistats website offered by 바카라사이트 Office for Students provides exactly this, in a manner that allows 바카라사이트m to select a course that matches specific features that suit 바카라사이트m. That is far more useful than a gold, silver or bronze ranking that just bundles toge바카라사이트r a host of different, and often unreliable and invalid, metrics into a global score.

Many have pointed out 바카라사이트 shortcomings of REF and TEF. Now is 바카라사이트 time, as 바카라사이트 system approaches breaking point, to accept that 바카라사이트y are doing more harm than good to 바카라사이트 sector.

Dorothy Bishop is professor of developmental neuropsychology at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford.