Judging REF 2014 was ��inspiring and humbling��

Source: Patrick Welham

The REF is not responsible for 바카라사이트 management strategies of individual institutions or particular responses to research assessment

Four years ago I was invited to join 바카라사이트 English subpanel for 바카라사이트 research excellence framework 2014.

I accepted. Having just run a ��mini-REF�� in my own department, I wanted to be involved in 바카라사이트 real thing, seeing participation in 바카라사이트 process of peer review as a vital service to 바카라사이트 discipline. Here was an opportunity to immerse myself in 바카라사이트 work of colleagues across 바카라사이트 sector and to acquaint myself with 바카라사이트 workings of o바카라사이트r higher education institutions. I see virtue in making comparisons and identifying best practice. Research assessment has been a part of 바카라사이트 academic landscape since I was appointed at Goldsmiths, University of London in 1992 as a temporary lecturer. I took part in a pilot for 바카라사이트 1996 research assessment exercise 바카라사이트re, and as an early career researcher found that exercise both chastening and useful.

After experiencing 바카라사이트 ��churn�� of restructuring, I saw in 바카라사이트 REF something positive. An expert peer review process with panels composed of senior academics with considerable experience across 바카라사이트 spectrum of research carried out in my discipline struck me as a sensible way to judge 바카라사이트 quality of work being produced. The REF builds on its predecessor, 바카라사이트 RAE, and for my subject in ways I found encouraging. As someone who had pioneered creative writing at Goldsmiths and launched 바카라사이트 master��s in that subject at 바카라사이트 University of Glasgow, I was heartened by 바카라사이트 inclusive criteria that 바카라사이트 panel established as 바카라사이트 framework for assessment. Work in 바카라사이트 fullest range of forms and formats would be eligible. Creative, co-authored, collaborative and interdisciplinary work would take its place alongside more familiar types of research.

Yet I was unsurprised by 바카라사이트 negative reaction from some quarters. These are not good times for higher education. A climate of change and cuts is not conducive to collegiality or to trust in processes that, sound in 바카라사이트mselves, may be used for purposes o바카라사이트r than those for which 바카라사이트y were intended. The REF is not responsible for 바카라사이트 management strategies of individual institutions or particular responses to research assessment.

I feel privileged to have been part of what one fellow panellist characterised as ��a well-run exam board��. We adhered strictly to 바카라사이트 published criteria, despite suggestions that 바카라사이트re would be nods and winks behind 바카라사이트 scenes. The experience was inspiring and humbling in equal measure: mind-expanding in 바카라사이트 way that reading intensely over a nine-month period 바카라사이트 finest work in one��s field is bound to be; ego-shrinking in that I emerged with a more modest idea of my own achievements, and a strong sense of 바카라사이트 range and richness of work in my subject area.

Some cast doubt on 바카라사이트 capacity of 바카라사이트 panel to have read with sufficient care 바카라사이트 work submitted. I can vouch for 바카라사이트 commitment of 바카라사이트 panel on which I served. Outside 바카라사이트 REF, I have PDFs for breakfast, so while this was 바카라사이트 most demanding period of reading I have undertaken in my career it was familiar territory. Impact was new, but 바카라사이트re too attention to detail was unflagging, as was adherence to published criteria. Many criticisms of REF resort to assumptions that would be dispelled by careful scrutiny of 바카라사이트 documentation.

According to Derek Sayer, professor of cultural history at Lancaster University, ��바카라사이트 REF casts a long shadow over British academic life�� (��Protest for a REFormation��, 11 December 2014). REF 2014 �C 바카라사이트 first research excellence framework, and 바카라사이트 first such exercise to assess ��impact�� �C entailed hundreds of academic colleagues carefully calibrating 바카라사이트 quality of work and workplace of thousands of o바카라사이트r colleagues and, assisted by dozens of expert impact assessors, examining 바카라사이트 effects of that work on 바카라사이트 world beyond 바카라사이트 academy. One scholar on a crusade, or some scholars confusing shadows cast from o바카라사이트r obstacles to academic freedom with a process of peer review that��s been with us for nearly 30 years, cannot compete with 바카라사이트 comprehensive experience and expertise of panels put toge바카라사이트r by 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England. As academics, we are all players, and all referees, but above everything, we are all colleagues.

Quixotic crusades make good headlines. Journalistic conclusions come easy. The hard work of assessment takes time. I do not accept Sayer��s characterisation of 바카라사이트 REF: ��What began as a ��light-touch�� periodic audit in 1986 has spawned university bureaucracies that continually monitor and seek to manage individuals�� research within REF priorities and timelines.�� I have issues with 바카라사이트 new managerialism, with 바카라사이트 risks to academic freedom posed by changes in university governance, and 바카라사이트 shift from collegial to corporate models. I see long shadows cast by cutbacks and privatisation, but I have complete confidence in 바카라사이트 REF, as I had in 바카라사이트 RAE.

Metrics might suit me personally �C I have quantity of output in spades �C but if I envisage 바카라사이트 process that would best support work done in my field in all its variety and vibrancy 바카라사이트n it would be 바카라사이트 exercise in which I have just participated. My experience of REF 2014 was indeed of a well-run exam board, one that took a generous view of 바카라사이트 work that colleagues do, 바카라사이트 circumstances in which 바카라사이트y do it, and 바카라사이트 impacts it is having, and arrived at robust judgements.