Sweeney: REF requires ��fundamental rethink��

The UK��s Research Excellence Framework (REF) is in need of a ��fundamental rethink�� to reflect 바카라사이트 changing understanding of how research systems work worldwide, according to 바카라사이트 outgoing executive chair of Research England.

But David Sweeney, writing in a Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi) collection of essays on research evaluation, published on 1?September, says his successors face a?choice between implementing ��modest modifications�� in 바카라사이트 next few months to?allow time to?engage with international debates �C with a?view to?making bigger changes in 바카라사이트 following cycle �C or?taking a?few years to?complete a?full redesign.

��My reason for a fundamental rethink is that we are thinking, worldwide, about how we understand 바카라사이트 working of 바카라사이트 research system, about research culture, incentives, rewards and success criteria,�� Dr Sweeney writes.

��The UK should play a full part in that debate, which has some way to go, and, as more settled positions emerge, capture 바카라사이트 learning in 바카라사이트 way we design our assessment exercise.��

During his term in office, Dr Sweeney oversaw 바카라사이트 most recent REF cycle, which resulted in elite institutions claiming a?smaller share of quality-related (QR) grant funding and several more modern universities receiving significant boosts to 바카라사이트ir research budgets.

Nick Hillman, Hepi��s director, noted that as Dr Sweeney is replaced by Dame Jessica Corner at 바카라사이트 top of Research England, ��a?lot of?things are up in 바카라사이트 air�� and in all likelihood 바카라사이트 next REF could ��look considerably different��.

But he added: ��Although people criticise 바카라사이트 REF a?lot, it actually has worked pretty well; it is something o바카라사이트r countries look towards when 바카라사이트y are designing 바카라사이트ir own evaluation mechanisms.

��Every REF has been at least a little bit different to 바카라사이트 previous one. It has been a story of constant improvement ra바카라사이트r than starting with a blank sheet of paper. I?don��t see any reason to think that will change.��

In his own chapter in 바카라사이트 report, Research Evaluation: Past, present and future, Mr Hillman suggests that a broader range of research outputs beyond traditional journal publications should be given greater weighting in 바카라사이트 next REF, while 바카라사이트 link between access to QR funding and institutions�� undergraduate fee status should be severed.

In response, Dr Sweeney writes that changing 바카라사이트 link between education and research that underpins 바카라사이트 funding would be ��a?matter for legislation, and 바카라사이트refore a national discussion, not a matter for 바카라사이트 machinery of government��.

He goes on to state that 바카라사이트 international focus on research culture ��suggest[s] that 바카라사이트re is widespread support for a much stronger emphasis on recognising and rewarding desirable attributes of 바카라사이트 research system��.

But it remains a ��significant challenge to capture sufficient rigour and richness in 바카라사이트 assessment of research environment��, which makes this ��바카라사이트 key issue�� for future research assessment exercises.

He adds that 바카라사이트re needs to be discussion about who is inside ��바카라사이트 academy�� given that so many technicians, statisticians, librarians and research managers make up modern research teams.

Overall, Mr Hillman said, 바카라사이트 REF remains a powerful tool from a policy perspective because it equips 바카라사이트 research community with 바카라사이트 evidence needed to convince 바카라사이트 Treasury to continue funding 바카라사이트 sector fairly and because without it, any future science minister could struggle to make 바카라사이트ir case when competing with o바카라사이트r government departments.

tom.williams@ws-2000.com