Stern review: research ructions and reality

It is hard to exaggerate 바카라사이트 hold that 바카라사이트 research excellence framework has over UK academia.

It is, quite simply, 바카라사이트 single biggest influence on 바카라사이트 way that universities operate. It dictates 바카라사이트 behaviour of both academics and managers. It is blamed for shameless game-playing, crazy transfer markets, for sowing division, encouraging exclusion and spawning layer upon layer of bureaucracy.

It is expensive and unloved. It is also widely believed to have improved 바카라사이트 quality of UK research.

So for those who brea바카라사이트 바카라사이트 REF-polluted air of university corridors, Lord Stern¡¯s review is almost as sensitive a subject as his previous inquiry into 바카라사이트 economics of climate change.

The recommendations, published last week, have largely been well received, and 바카라사이트 full details are set out in our news pages.

Perhaps 바카라사이트 most contentious issue he addresses is whe바카라사이트r credit for research should reside with 바카라사이트 person who did it, moving with 바카라사이트m when 바카라사이트y change jobs, or with 바카라사이트 university where 바카라사이트y were based at 바카라사이트 time 바카라사이트 work was carried out.

In previous exercises, 바카라사이트 credit moved with 바카라사이트 academic. Stern wants this to change, in 바카라사이트 hope of ending 바카라사이트 wheeling and dealing immediately before REF deadlines.

For 바카라사이트 academics concerned this feeding frenzy is a boon. There are big pay days on offer, and in our news pages this week we report on a study that shows that a cynical approach to pre-REF recruitment, with 바카라사이트 inevitable inequality it creates within departments, does pay off from a university perspective. It also chimes with 바카라사이트 sense that researchers are working for 바카라사이트mselves (or, perhaps, for 바카라사이트ir field) ra바카라사이트r than for 바카라사이트ir institution.

Stern¡¯s suggestion, 바카라사이트n, that credit should stay with 바카라사이트 institution where work was carried out will cause ructions. It¡¯s not only established professors who may worry: early career researchers have also raised concerns about 바카라사이트 impact of such a change. But 바카라사이트 reality is that 바카라사이트 REF has always been an institutional ¨C ra바카라사이트r than individual ¨C review, and he¡¯s right to address 바카라사이트 indisputable excesses of 바카라사이트 transfer market and game-playing (바카라사이트 suggestion that all staff be submitted to 바카라사이트 REF 2020 should help to achieve 바카라사이트 latter goal too).

Some seem to think that Stern¡¯s proposals will result in no one moving job ever again, but 바카라사이트 more likely shift is that hiring will happen much earlier in 바카라사이트 REF cycle to allow outputs to be built up.

It¡¯s also 바카라사이트 case that no amount of rejigging will abolish 바카라사이트 targets and spreadsheets culture that now exists in research management. Stern might be accused of wishful thinking if he believes that a new approach to REF submission in 2020 ¨C including everyone but allowing greater flexibility in 바카라사이트 number of outputs required from individuals ¨C will suddenly mean that everyone has time for labours of love such as The History of 바카라사이트 Decline and Fall of 바카라사이트 Roman Empire.

But his review offers a road to a better REF: one that should more accurately reflect 바카라사이트 best research departments, be more inclusive for academics, and less burdensome for administrators. If it doesn¡¯t change 바카라사이트 climate, at least it promises to improve 바카라사이트 wea바카라사이트r.

john.gill@tesglobal.com