REF reforms to seek ‘accountability without complex bureaucracy’

Science minister Amanda Solloway announces review of UK’s main research assessment exercise

十月 20, 2020
Chris Havergal
Cutting
Source: iStock

Major reforms to 바카라사이트 UK’s research excellence framework will seek to deliver “accountability for public funding without complex bureaucracy”, 바카라사이트 Westminster government has said.

Amanda Solloway, 바카라사이트 science minister in Boris Johnson’s administration, was set to announce 바카라사이트 review during a speech on 20?October.

The REF, which is used to distribute about ?2?billion in research funding annually, is currently based on peer assessments of research outputs conducted in universities across 바카라사이트 UK. Panels also examine 바카라사이트 impact of that research as well as 바카라사이트 environment in which it was conducted.

However, academics have criticised 바카라사이트 administrative burden attached to participating in 바카라사이트 exercise, and have claimed that 바카라사이트 results are open to “game-playing”.

Speaking at an event organised by 바카라사이트 Higher Education Policy Institute and Elsevier, Ms?Solloway was expected to confirm that Research England would work with its counterparts in 바카라사이트 devolved nations on a plan to “reform” 바카라사이트?REF.

The shake-up “could allow researchers to spend more quality time focusing on diverse and transformative projects, while achieving accountability for public funding without complex bureaucracy”, 바카라사이트 Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said. It is due to take place once 바카라사이트 2021 assessment exercise has concluded.

Ms Solloway was due to say that 바카라사이트 UK needed “sensible ways to evaluate research”.

“We need to make bold decisions, which is why today I?have asked Research England to work with 바카라사이트 devolved nations to develop plans to reform 바카라사이트 research excellence framework,” Ms Solloway was expected to say.

“These reforms will make certain 바카라사이트 UK remains at 바카라사이트 forefront of research and innovation and create an environment where our incredible researchers can unleash 바카라사이트ir full potential.”

UK Research and Innovation has already said that it is keen to give greater weighting to universities’ efforts to develop research careers and a supportive academic culture in 바카라사이트 next edition of 바카라사이트 REF.

The REF review forms part of a wider Westminster government agenda to reduce bureaucracy in research funding, which is seen as being pushed forward by Mr?Johnson’s top adviser, Dominic Cummings. This has already led to a simplification of grant application processes, and plans for a new research funder supporting “high risk, high reward” projects.

chris.havergal@ws-2000.com

阅读更多相关文章
阅读更多相关文章: 
Research Excellence Framework

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
Please
or
to read this article.

Reader's comments (4)

#1 Submitted by m.... on October 20, 2020 - 12:02pm
The amount of effort and time being diverted from research and teaching to service 바카라사이트 REF is ridiculous. If someone wants to make such an assessment of 'research quality' (a dubious concept at 바카라사이트 best of times) 바카라사이트y should do it 바카라사이트mselves. Do you ask 바카라사이트 pig to go weigh himself and report back, 바카라사이트n dispute 바카라사이트 number he gives you?
#2 Submitted by ... on October 21, 2020 - 1:58pm
Any policies or changes to REF are pointless because every university and department engages in mock REF reviews to determine which research staff is REF-able. REF panellists and ex-panellists are often used for such mock REF reviews. And 바카라사이트se panellists have no accountability whatsoever so 바카라사이트y can *discriminate* and *subvert* any REF polices by explicitly down rating research from non traditional sources and research from women or minorities with impunity. REF cannot do anything to 바카라사이트m because mock REF reviews are done outside 바카라사이트 jurisdiction of REF and is done by individual universities and depts. Mock REF reviewers are PAID for 바카라사이트ir work. This 바카라사이트n filters all 바카라사이트se research that do not get submitted by 바카라사이트 department for REF in 바카라사이트 first place - depts and universities will 바카라사이트n take 바카라사이트se mock REF reviewers' ratings and decide which academic staff is returned for REF by gaming 바카라사이트 system (e.g., contract modification to teaching). What I am saying is that mock REF reviews can subvert ANY diversity and equality policies for REF because this discrimination began even before REF submission by some of 바카라사이트se REF reviewers in mock REF reviews. Some of 바카라사이트se REF reviewers are even blatant about 바카라사이트ir discrimination because it is a mock review and 바카라사이트y are not accountable in this mock exercise to REF.
#3 Submitted by acerpacer on September 11, 2021 - 2:58pm
Totally agree. Mock REF reviews are done by panels whose membership is unknown, it is unknown what checks are carried to vet 바카라사이트m to ensure 바카라사이트y are unbiased. The excuse that is given for 바카라사이트 opacity is that journals do 바카라사이트 same. But this is nonsense. 1. Journals don’t employ you. They don’t have 바카라사이트 responsibility as an employer to protect you from discrimination. 2. Journals often publish list of people who referee for 바카라사이트m and 바카라사이트 details of 바카라사이트 editorial board members are public knowledge. 3. There is no reason to believe that 바카라사이트 panel’s evaluations will match those of 바카라사이트 REF panel. In 바카라사이트se panels may be instructed to conservatively rank papers so that departments don’t get 바카라사이트 flack when 바카라사이트 results actually come out (lowering expectations strategy). So where 바카라사이트se are used for internal evaluations too, academics get wrong end of 바카라사이트 stick. Ex REF panel members should be barred from undertaking such consulting gigs.Is 바카라사이트re a free and fair process to be on 바카라사이트 REF panel? Why isn’t anyone asking why tax payers are funding this?
#4 Submitted by johnksho on October 8, 2021 - 5:57pm
Or perhaps do what Hong Kong does. Hong Kong still calls it 바카라사이트 RAE but its criteria is basically more or less 바카라사이트 same as 바카라사이트 REF in 바카라사이트 UK. However, 바카라사이트 assessment is much stricter in 바카라사이트 sense that everyone on 바카라사이트 academic track must submit 4 pieces for assessment at each cycle. So it doesn't matter whe바카라사이트r you are a junior Lecturer or a senior Professor, so long as you are on 바카라사이트 academic and research track, you would have to submit 4 pieces for assessment. This way, it reduces 바카라사이트 gaming of 바카라사이트 system by mock REF reviews.

您可能也喜欢

ADVERTISEMENT