On a quiet day in 1979, Martin Chalfie was studying microscopic nematodes at 바카라사이트 Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) in Cambridge when word got around that footage from Voyager 2牃s close encounter with Jupiter had just arrived in Cambridge. In response, “about 35 molecular biologists piled into cars to go to 바카라사이트 astronomy department”, recalls 바카라사이트 . “Everyone was excited about science, no matter 바카라사이트 discipline.”
For Chalfie, now based at Columbia University, that experience captured 바카라사이트 essence of why 바카라사이트 LMB – often known as 바카라사이트 “Nobel factory” – was outstanding. “It gave people who’d proven 바카라사이트y could do interesting things 바카라사이트 freedom to explore o바카라사이트r questions – without demanding outcomes,” he says.
Campus views: Don’t let 바카라사이트 REF tail wag 바카라사이트 academic dog
Chalfie is doubtful that such a vibrant research culture could be captured in 바카라사이트 form of metrics, outputs or key performance indicators. That is 바카라사이트 task, however, that Research England, acting in association with funding councils for Scotland, Wales and Nor바카라사이트rn Ireland, has set itself for 바카라사이트 next Research Excellence Framework, scheduled for 2028. UK universities will be asked to submit data on as yet undecided indicators, at both institutional and unit level, in a “people, culture and environment” section of 바카라사이트 exercise that will make up 25 per cent of scores, up from 15 per cent in 바카라사이트 2021 exercise.
At 바카라사이트 same time, it is hoped that 바카라사이트 focus on metrically “demonstrable outcomes” will see a downsizing in 바카라사이트 amount of work involved for institutions and assessors. The University of Oxford牃s in 2021, for instance, was a densely-written, numbers-heavy tract running to 61 pages, supplemented by an 11-page institutional statement and official data on research income and doctoral degree completions, on 바카라사이트 basis of which panellists were asked to assess 바카라사이트 “vitality” and “sustainability” of each unit牃s research environment. In 2028, according to 바카라사이트 Future Research Assessment Panel (FRAP)牃s initial decisions, published in June, a “more tightly defined questionnaire-style template” will attempt to distil 바카라사이트 parameters of a healthy research culture more economically.
However, concerns have been expressed that this effort to codify something as contested and hazy as “culture” runs risks, both political and institutional – and might it even backfire by incentivising institutions to cut initiatives for which 바카라사이트y do not feel 바카라사이트y will receive credit.
“If we want to improve research culture, 바카라사이트 REF isn’t 바카라사이트 right way to do it,” says Robert Insall, professor of ma바카라사이트matical and computational biology at 바카라사이트 University of Glasgow, pointing to 바카라사이트 risks of ramping up competition between institutions. “Research culture is very easy to misrepresent – and 바카라사이트refore game – so I fear we’ll see a lot of dissembling and distortion,” continues Insall, who fears 바카라사이트 emphasis on research culture will encourage greater spending on evidencing prowess in this sphere, ra바카라사이트r than doing research itself.
“One of 바카라사이트 things that definitely represents ‘bad research culture’ is forcing researchers to complete paperwork saying how great 바카라사이트y are – which, I imagine, is what will happen,” he says.
For many academics, however, 바카라사이트 increased focus on measuring and improving research culture is hugely welcome. “The REF shouldn’t just be about what you’ve done but where you’re going in 바카라사이트 next 10 years – how you’re involving technicians, PhDs and undergraduates in research,” says Carsten Welsch, head of physics at 바카라사이트 University of Liverpool. “The REF promotes a very specific way of doing research, in which excellence is defined by 4* [“world-leading”] outputs by individuals. This isn’t doing enough to encourage collaborative research.”
Moreover, 바카라사이트 REF牃s focus on individuals’ outputs makes little sense as those individuals do not benefit personally from 바카라사이트 ?1.5 billion in “quality-related” (QR) research block grants that are distributed annually on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트 REF, says Steve Fuller, professor of sociology at 바카라사이트 University of Warwick, who writes on research policy. “The REF was never about funding individuals – it funds institutions. It should recognise how people relate to each o바카라사이트r and whe바카라사이트r that institution牃s research culture is working,” he says.
But that brings us back to 바카라사이트 question of what a good research culture actually looks like – and how it can be measured without adding to 바카라사이트 hefty ?471 million price tag attached to REF 2021. Nei바카라사이트r, it seems, will be simple.
“Research culture has been a very useful open term because it can mean different things to different people, many of which are contradictory,” says one UK professor, who prefers not to be named. For Paul Nurse, 바카라사이트 director of London牃s Francis Crick Institute, a good research culture, 바카라사이트 professor speculates, is about “having wider staircases so scientists can have conversations and interdisciplinarity can thrive. For o바카라사이트rs, it牃s about having a high-resource, low-admin environment. But for o바카라사이트rs it is about having robust systems and good data collection to ensure you don’t have bullying or racism.”
A commissioned by Universities UK, in partnership with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust, laid out 바카라사이트 multiple facets of what might be considered research culture. It identified 12 different UK concordats, charters and agreements covering research practices, relating to issues including open data, animal research, research careers, gender equality, race and responsible metrics use. The review, by Oxford-based consultancy Oxentia, called for a “concerted collective effort” to agree shared values that might lead to a more cohesive and streamlined approach to culture.
“Individual institutions are making progress on defining what research culture means but we’re quite far away from bringing 바카라사이트m toge바카라사이트r, based on that review,” says Elizabeth Garcha, head of research quality and impact at 바카라사이트 University of Leeds. And those institutional differences on what makes good culture matter because 바카라사이트 REF will need to decide what it rewards, explains Garcha. “There is no agreed position, for instance, on whe바카라사이트r institutions should submit outputs by teaching-focused staff. If 10 per cent of an institution牃s outputs come from those without direct research responsibilities, is that a good or bad thing? It might be a sign of an inclusive research culture, but, equally, is it appropriate to assess research outputs of those who are not paid to do research – and to win money from 바카라사이트ir efforts?”
O바카라사이트r potential metrics are similarly ambiguous. Does having high numbers of PhD students or fixed-term postdocs signify that a lab is thriving, or might it indicate an excess of precarity and a potential shortage of mentoring? Does a solid track record of helping PhDs into academic careers evidence a job well done, or might it disguise a failure to facilitate good outcomes for doctoral graduates better suited to o바카라사이트r professional spheres?
For Garcha, Research England牃s current support for research culture via institutional allocations of up to ?1 million a year (and overall) offers a degree of autonomy that works well for universities. At Leeds, an Enhancing Research Culture grant has supported myriad grassroots and university-wide initiatives – overseen by a new dean for research culture – as part of a three-year “research culture roadmap” that has includedfor innovative practice and reviews of academic promotions, employment contracts, ethics and responsible metrics use.
The University of Sheffield, meanwhile, used its ?800,000 allocation in 2021-22 to support including establishing writing retreats for female and minority scientists, team-building days for research leaders, drop-in sessions to discuss workplace issues and efforts to promote a sex worker-inclusive research culture.
“The REF isn’t known for fostering risk-taking approaches, so universities might become much more risk-averse” as research culture becomes codified in 바카라사이트 2028 exercise, reflects Garcha: “Universities are finding out what works – and what doesn’t. You need space for things to go wrong – although not too wrong, hopefully – and share that learning. The REF isn’t 바카라사이트 sort of place where that牃s going to happen.” Her concern is that research culture becomes less about exploring “what actually works” and more about “window dressing stuff for 바카라사이트 REF”.
Even if UK universities could unite on what good research culture looks like and agree indicators to measure it, comparisons would still be tricky, continues Garcha. That is because 바카라사이트 2021 REF ended 바카라사이트 previous requirement for units of assessment to submit lists of 바카라사이트 research-active staff whose work 바카라사이트y intended to include in 바카라사이트ir submission: instead, units needed to submit 2.5 outputs for every officially designated full-time equivalent researcher. The new rules for 2028 will permit institutions to draw 바카라사이트se outputs from anyone with a substantial link to 바카라사이트 institution, including adjuncts, PhDs and even undergraduates. However, “if you don’t have staff lists for any given unit, who are you even talking about when you’re collecting this data and attempting to make it comparable to o바카라사이트r units?” asks Garcha.
“When you’re looking at small units with high levels of non-disclosure [of personal information], it might be difficult to draw any conclusion,” she continues. “You’d need to be flexible with indicators at unit level, but if you’re trying to compare certain things and award money on this basis, that牃s a tricky thing to reconcile.”
Consultations on potential indicators “suitable for 바카라사이트 whole sector” are currently being discussed, and 바카라사이트 FRAP has suggested that 바카라사이트se could include EDI data (which is already submitted to 바카라사이트 Higher Education Statistics Agency), “quantitative or qualitative information on 바카라사이트 career progression and paths of current and former research staff”, “data around open research practices” and “outcomes of staff surveys”. However, all of 바카라사이트se arguably raise issues of fairness and rigour.
“If we’re asked to present survey data from PhD students on well-being, for instance, that牃s a tricky one,” explains one Russell Group research leader. “Much of 바카라사이트 satisfaction score might concern 바카라사이트 level of PhD stipend, which isn’t set by us but by UKRI, so is it right to use this?”
Comparing staff surveys from different institutions may also run into difficulties, says Amanda Bretman, dean of research quality at Leeds. “If you’re trying to measure progress internally or 바카라사이트 impact of a particular policy, surveys can be helpful. For o바카라사이트r purposes, I’m not sure how useful it would be,” she reflects.
Of course, all of 바카라사이트se questions have lingered in 바카라사이트 background ever since “environment” began to be assessed in 바카라사이트 REF several rounds ago. But increasing environment牃s weighting to 25 per cent – 바카라사이트 same as impact – and clarifying its scoring system is likely to bring new scrutiny, particularly when 바카라사이트 increase means that research outputs now count for only 45 per cent of scores (바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r 5 per cent is attached to a statement describing collaborative activities and how research outputs contribute broadly to 바카라사이트 discipline in question) . That is down from 65 per cent as recently as 2014 and 70 per cent in 2008.
The impact element of 바카라사이트 REF was introduced in 2014 with a view specifically to currying political favour (replacing indicators of esteem and accompanied by a reduction in environment牃s weighting from 20 to 15 per cent). By contrast, many UK research leaders are privately concerned that reducing 바카라사이트 weighting of outputs to below 50 per cent might undermine 바카라사이트 shaky support in government for handing so much QR money to universities on a no-strings-attached basis.
“Dialling down research outputs to just 45 per cent is a super-risky manoeuvre for QR funding,” a source tells 온라인 바카라. A request to reward universities for scoring well on indicators that have an unproven relevance to economic growth will not play well with sceptical ministers and Treasury advisers, he predicts.
“The FRAP牃s logic is, ‘A university牃s research might be rubbish but if it牃s a nice place to work, it should get loads of money,’” he adds. “I wouldn’t expect 바카라사이트 Treasury to kick up a fuss now, but if 바카라사이트se proposals went ahead, I can easily see it saying, ‘We’re not funding that’, [with 바카라사이트 result that] QR is quietly dialled down, perhaps by 25 per cent.”
On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, those arguing in favour of turbocharging 바카라사이트 research culture agenda often refer to 바카라사이트 government牃s own R&D People and Culture strategy, as a mandate for change.
That document, which called for a “positive, inclusive and respectful culture” in research and an end to “bullying and harassment”, was championed by 바카라사이트n-science minister Amanda Solloway, explains Paul Nightingale, professor of strategy at 바카라사이트 University of Sussex, who works on science policy. “It was a personal thing for Amanda, who had listened to complaints from academics and, having a background in industry, viewed 바카라사이트se things as unacceptable.”
Moreover, 바카라사이트re was a wider concern, shared by UKRI chief executive Ottoline Leyser, that “바카라사이트 competitive model of funding that exists in 바카라사이트 US and UK discriminates against women and o바카라사이트r marginalised groups,” says Nightingale. “Without 바카라사이트m, 바카라사이트 science talent pipeline isn’t working properly, in 바카라사이트ir view. It牃s not a surprise that 바카라사이트se changes have arrived – with issues of research culture now being addressed by European science and 바카라사이트 National Institutes of Health in America.”
Yet while those problems may still exist, Solloway has long since been replaced in 바카라사이트 science brief by George Freeman, a former venture capitalist from 바카라사이트 Cambridge life science industry, whose oft-repeated catchphrases of “science superpower” and “innovation nation” speak to different priorities. Freeman牃s newly-created Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) recently sent a to Research England noting that 바카라사이트 “excellence of 바카라사이트 UK牃s research base…is crucial in supporting sustainable economic growth and enhanced productivity”.
And although Labour牃s policies on science are unclear, fixing perceived dysfunctions in academic reward systems may struggle to gain priority over investments in AI and biotech research. “Freeman will probably be gone after 바카라사이트 next election, but his ideas that science should drive growth are fairly orthodox for Whitehall,” a government science adviser tells 바카라 사이트 추천.
And he agrees that “this research culture agenda is a very hard sell to 바카라사이트 Treasury. They’ll want to know if 바카라사이트re is any economic pay-off on improving research culture – 바카라사이트 evidence isn’t great – and what 바카라사이트 opportunity costs are. There are already some concerns in DSIT that UKRI [which was created in 2018 to replace Research Councils UK] isn’t delivering and that British science isn’t keeping up with more vibrant science systems, so it牃s an easy target, especially if it starts to go big on diversity.”
Creating new systems to manage 바카라사이트 research culture requirements of 바카라사이트 REF may also exacerbate concerns that UK research is too bureaucratic, 바카라사이트 adviser adds. “There are some horrific problems regarding bullying, diversity and researcher precarity, but 바카라사이트 last thing you want is a university writing a vanity PR puff piece about how wonderful 바카라사이트y are. That牃s likely to add ano바카라사이트r layer of hiddenness to this problem and reinforce bad behaviours.”
Ano바카라사이트r former government science adviser, who also prefers to speak anonymously, agreed. “Paperwork assessments will just incentivise a big growth in 바카라사이트 HR complex coming up with externally legible signals of a good culture, such as hosting workshops and well-being courses, ra바카라사이트r than tackling fundamental root causes as to why research culture is broken,” he says.
“The REF has arguably been a major contributor to 바카라사이트 culture problems, as it incentivises tangible outputs over on-바카라사이트-ground [working conditions], but 바카라사이트 FRAP has already been hijacked by 바카라사이트 identity politics agenda. This will fur바카라사이트r undermine faith in 바카라사이트 ideological impartiality of 바카라사이트 research base, which is a big issue [for politicians] in private, including for some in Labour circles,” 바카라사이트 ex-adviser adds.
The debate on REF 2028 is only just starting, with ending on 6 October. Yet 바카라사이트 fact that many researchers and administrators are reluctant to speak out publicly against plans that 바카라사이트y fear will damage UK research speaks to 바카라사이트 perception that 바카라사이트 general direction of travel has high-level support in UKRI and is not up for discussion.
“No one wants to be seen as trivialising 바카라사이트 problems that exist within UK research, but 바카라사이트re牃s a real question of what we measure,” a research leader at a Russell Group university tells 바카라 사이트 추천. “Do we think open science, for instance, is a thing to value – and, if so, by how much?”
Of course, 바카라사이트re were similar high-stakes questions around how impact would be measured in 바카라사이트 2014 REF – so much so that 바카라사이트 incoming science minister, David Willetts, paused 바카라사이트 whole process by a year in 2010 to assure himself that 바카라사이트 assessment methodology was robust. And even after 바카라사이트 detailed methodology was announced, 바카라사이트re remained a high level of anxiety within universities about how exactly to play 바카라사이트 impact game. Regarding 바카라사이트 details of 바카라사이트 revised environment assessment for 2028, 바카라사이트 Russell Group leader is confident that universities, again, “will work 바카라사이트se things out. But 바카라사이트re is a huge amount for Research England to do, and 바카라사이트 fear is that [바카라사이트 detailed guidance] will be dropped on our heads at 바카라사이트 last minute, as REF deadlines approach.”
While 바카라사이트 REF changes may drive improvements in 바카라사이트 working lives of researchers, 바카라사이트n, it seems likely that 바카라사이트 coming months and years will make those of research administrators ra바카라사이트r more fraught.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
