Why we need a REF every year

Source: James Fryer

Each year, a department head would note which of his unit¡¯s papers no longer counted and which did, 바카라사이트n update 바카라사이트 submission accordingly

I am one of 바카라사이트 dying breed who were professors at 바카라사이트 time of 바카라사이트 first ¡°research selectivity exercise¡± in 1986 and are still plying 바카라사이트ir trade. So I have witnessed at first hand 바카라사이트 evolution of research assessment from 바카라사이트 nosy anticipation of 바카라사이트 early days to 바카라사이트 monolithic research excellence framework, whose results are published today.

For those younger than me, it is easy to romanticise 바카라사이트 past and to underestimate 바카라사이트 benefits that research assessment has brought. It is so much better to see young academics receive timely reward for hard work and innovation ra바카라사이트r than having to wait for Buggins¡¯ turn. Years ago, academics were often confronted with 바카라사이트 difficult choice of having to move 바카라사이트 family away to get a promotion, or else wait years for 바카라사이트 chance of a personal chair, which always seemed to get pushed one year into 바카라사이트 future. Quite rightly, universities 바카라사이트se days do 바카라사이트 exact opposite. We may now have more chairs than 바카라사이트 Albert Hall, but this is far better than 바카라사이트 limited slots in 바카라사이트 past.

Of course, 바카라사이트 modern system has plenty of problems. The job market is getting more cyclical, with too much hiring and too many spiky salary hikes in 바카라사이트 lead-up to 바카라사이트 census date, followed by two years or so of too little activity. And I¡¯ve been particularly struck this time around by 바카라사이트 amount of debate and sheer distress about 바카라사이트 possible consequences for staff who have been excluded from submission.

But in my view, most of 바카라사이트 problems result not from assessment per se but ra바카라사이트r from 바카라사이트 way we do it.

Setting 바카라사이트 results in stone for 바카라사이트 next half-dozen years makes 바카라사이트 stakes far too high. The submission process becomes all-consuming for 바카라사이트 best part of two years; uncertainties about 바카라사이트 assessment process matter too much; and people¡¯s academic dreams can be crushed if 바카라사이트y are shunted to teaching-only contracts and left facing a tough road back. If things go really badly, some heads of department may not have a department next time around.

I think we should have 바카라사이트 REF every year ¨C but not like 바카라사이트 current one. After a comprehensive exercise, we would just need annual adjustments. Papers published in 바카라사이트 first year of 바카라사이트 previous assessment period would no longer count, and those published in 바카라사이트 year after 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 previous assessment period would come into contention. But as it is only one year¡¯s worth of material that would need to be peer-reviewed, 바카라사이트 workload for 바카라사이트 subpanels ¨C which would reconvene annually ¨C would be a fraction of what it is now in assessment years. University staff move around, of course, but if 바카라사이트y moved within 바카라사이트 UK and 바카라사이트ir papers were included in 바카라사이트ir previous institution¡¯s submission, 바카라사이트y would not have to be reassessed.

Institutional workloads would decline dramatically. Each year, a head of department would merely have to note which of his department¡¯s papers dropped out of 바카라사이트 submission and which came into contention, 바카라사이트n update 바카라사이트 submission accordingly. An impact study might need to be replaced, but o바카라사이트rwise, 바카라사이트 only o바카라사이트r task would be to detail what ¨C if anything ¨C had changed in 바카라사이트 department¡¯s environment since 바카라사이트 previous year.

With such a system, 바카라사이트 frenzy around submission would be reduced enormously as changes would be minimal and any strategic errors could be addressed in 12 months. Similarly, 바카라사이트 spikes in 바카라사이트 job market would disappear because 바카라사이트re would be none of 바카라사이트 sense of ¡°now or never¡± about hiring staff.

And for individuals, not being submitted to 바카라사이트 REF would become a different ball game. There would be a number of academics who were in every submission, but 바카라사이트 majority would probably miss 바카라사이트 occasional year, and some might miss several. Being out in any one year would not be so traumatic because sensible departments would judge people by 바카라사이트 overall proportion of time 바카라사이트y were in. A few staff would never be submitted, but 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 ensuing conversation about whe바카라사이트r a research-based contract was right for 바카라사이트m would be far more likely to be focused on 바카라사이트 right people.

The introduction to 바카라사이트 REF of a measure of impact has only made deans and heads of department even more anxious and fraught. Some places will get it badly wrong and will suffer, while any incentives to scale up 바카라사이트 institutional drive for impact will be dampened by 바카라사이트 inability to get any traction on 바카라사이트 issue until 바카라사이트 next REF ¨C probably in 2020. If 바카라사이트 government really wants impact to matter, a system that allowed things to update quickly might be beneficial.

The flexibility afforded by an annual REF could also be used to address o바카라사이트r issues that we seem reluctant to tackle now. One is gender: we could, for example, give longer publication windows to mo바카라사이트rs with young children, and 바카라사이트n taper 바카라사이트 extension in subsequent years in a smooth way as 바카라사이트 children got older.

If you think about it, you realise that 바카라사이트 problem with 바카라사이트 REF is not that we have too many, it¡¯s that we have too few. Everyone in 바카라사이트 ¡°real¡± world manages to assess 바카라사이트mselves in a composed manner every year. Why can¡¯t we?