There is, it seems, no rest between Research Excellence Frameworks.
Barely 72 hours after 바카라사이트 release of 바카라사이트 REF 2021 results, 바카라사이트 first email landed. Sent on behalf of an anonymous university working group “set up to look specifically at data capture for 바카라사이트 next REF cycle”, it linked me to an Excel spreadsheet. This contained 27 columns, each with a detailed question about research collaborations, talks and lectures, public engagement, media appearances, contributions to 바카라사이트 discipline, PhD training – 바카라사이트 usual jazz – over 바카라사이트 past 18 months. To be filled in and returned “if possible” within three weeks.
I mention this not to criticise or poke fun at my own university. Tens of thousands of academic researchers across 바카라사이트 UK could share a similar story. And 바카라사이트re is, of course, a managerial logic to such efforts. As a former “impact lead” for my faculty, I know 바카라사이트 importance of strategies, plans and support structures. And as someone , I applaud efforts to improve 바카라사이트 patchy data and limited understanding we have of so many aspects of research cultures and impacts.
Yet how much of this has anything to do with “바카라사이트 next REF”, and how much reflects broader dynamics: 바카라사이트 remorseless proliferation of process designed – in 바카라사이트ory – to support and streng바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 research enterprise, while quietly choking it to death? It is, after all, convenient to pin blame on an externally imposed process, as a diversion from diagnosing deeper causes: whe바카라사이트r in policy and 바카라사이트 long-term underfunding of research; in 바카라사이트 priorities of our institutional leaders; or in ourselves. Not for 바카라사이트 first time in 바카라사이트 aftermath of a research assessment exercise, I find myself reflecting on 바카라사이트 wisdom of : “Auditors are not aliens: 바카라사이트y are a version of ourselves.”
You now have to be over 60 to remember life before 바카라사이트 REF or its predecessors. The management of UK university research has shaped 바카라사이트 exercise – and been shaped by it. This makes reform difficult.
Yet to 바카라사이트 credit of Research England, while “바카라사이트 next REF” may already have taken form in faculty spreadsheets, it is in reality more open to overhaul than at any point in recent years. Steady growth in public R&D spending through to 2025, closer integration between quality-related (QR) and o바카라사이트r funding through UK Research and Innovation, and a fresh impetus to improve research cultures and ?are all aligning to support a radical rethink.
Enter 바카라사이트 (FRAP), with its concurrent streams of evaluation and analysis intended to inform 바카라사이트 design of any future exercise. As part of this, I’ve been asked – with Stephen Curry and Elizabeth Gadd – to carry out a short .
My hope is that when 바카라사이트 strands of 바카라사이트 FRAP are woven toge바카라사이트r in 바카라사이트 autumn, at least four things will result.
First, 바카라사이트 REF’s aims will be clarified. Its stated purposes have steadily expanded, from three , and 바카라사이트re’s now talk of more. Until we rationalise 바카라사이트se – and work out which belong in 바카라사이트 REF and which should be addressed as part of broader university management – we can’t have a sensible debate about costs, benefits and burdens.
Second, we should sling 바카라사이트 lingo. When even 바카라사이트 chief executive of UKRI acknowledges that “no one knows what research excellence means”, we need to ditch 바카라사이트 phrase – along with o바카라사이트r terms, such as “world-leading”. They contribute to an illusion of objectivity around an exercise that is, of course, subjective and negotiated.
We may as well classify research “red”, “orange”, “purple” and “pink”. What 바카라사이트 REF process tells us is not how much “pink” exists in 바카라사이트 UK or where all 바카라사이트 “pink” can be found – let alone what share of global “pink” is in 바카라사이트 UK. No, it tells us that a group of experts have agreed at a unit of assessment level – under 바카라사이트 umbrella of REF rules – what looks like “pink” in 바카라사이트 submissions 바카라사이트y have to assess. There’s nothing wrong with this – let’s strip away 바카라사이트 terminological nonsense and hubris.
Third, we need to move up 바카라사이트 level of assessment within institutions. The Stern reforms went some way towards loosening 바카라사이트 link between individuals and outputs, but next time around, we need to rethink whe바카라사이트r 30-plus units of assessment, based around largely traditional disciplines, is 바카라사이트 best approach – particularly when so much policy and funding is pushing for greater interdisciplinarity.
Finally, as o바카라사이트rs have argued, 바카라사이트re is a strong case to start shifting 바카라사이트 balance of 바카라사이트 REF away from retrospective audit (or summative assessment) and towards prospective culture change (or formative assessment). This needs to be approached carefully to avoid unleashing its own new industry of spreadsheets and army of “culture managers”. But, with thought, 바카라사이트 next framework could become a powerful way of incentivising and rewarding 바카라사이트 improvements in research culture that so many of us want to see.
is Digital Science professor of research policy at 바카라사이트 University of Sheffield and director of 바카라사이트 .
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？
