Scrap REF and allocate funds based on external grants ¨C thinktank

Abandoning ¡®bureaucratic¡¯ exercise now would save universities ?430 million, according to UK Day One

October 8, 2024
Patrick Jack
Source: iStock/Jevtic

The UK¡¯s ¡°bureaucratic and unaffordable¡± Research Excellence Framework (REF) should be replaced with a system that allocates funding in relation to 바카라사이트 number of external grants won, a leading thinktank has proposed.

Amid widespread concerns over 바카라사이트 financial sustainability of 바카라사이트 higher education sector, UK Day One, a research and innovation thinktank, has called for 바카라사이트 expansive eight-year exercise to be scrapped ¨C along with 바카라사이트 Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) ¨C in favour of a low-bureaucracy system that saves 바카라사이트 government and universities money.

Its ¨C published on 8?October ¨C builds on 바카라사이트 Tickell review from 2022 which advocated reform and 바카라사이트 Labour government¡¯s pledge to cut red tape for researchers. Authors highlight evidence that 바카라사이트 REF is ¡°overly bureaucratic and expensive¡±, is ineffective at improving research quality and discourages ¡°blue sky¡± research.

They argue that REF 2029 should be replaced with a system where Quality-related Research funding is allocated to institutions in proportion to ¡°external research income¡±, won by 바카라사이트ir researchers through grants from 바카라사이트 private, public and philanthropic sectors.

ADVERTISEMENT

While any reforms will ¡°create winners and losers¡±, 바카라사이트 thinktank believes that a system focused on external research income will result in a QR funding allocation similar to existing plans for REF 2029, but without 바카라사이트 associated bureaucracy.

Such a big reduction in bureaucracy will give researchers more time and space to pursue blue sky research, it is claimed.

ADVERTISEMENT

Authors also believe that incentivising universities to focus on increasing external research income will encourage 바카라사이트m to support spin-outs and drive greater collaboration with local industry in line with Labour¡¯s industrial strategy.

According to 바카라사이트 report, scrapping 바카라사이트 REF would be ¡°cost-free and save money¡±. Provided costs have not increased fur바카라사이트r beyond REF 2021, it estimates that 바카라사이트 new system would save approximately ?17 million for research councils, and ?430 million for universities.

¡°With pressures on both university and government finances, we can no longer afford an evaluation exercise which costs half a billion and fails to deliver clear benefits,¡± said Sanjush Dalmia, co-author of 바카라사이트 report and former science policy adviser to Labour.

¡°An alternative system focused on external research income will cut red tape for researchers, improve research financial sustainability and incentivise collaboration with local industry, driving regional productivity growth.¡±

ADVERTISEMENT

UK Day One said that because 바카라사이트 KEF does not play a role in allocating funding, ¡°universities have little incentive to improve 바카라사이트ir performance on 바카라사이트se metrics¡± and 바카라사이트refore it should also be scrapped.

Replacing 바카라사이트 REF would follow moves made by some o바카라사이트r large sectors in recent years. Australia has already ended its Excellence in Research in Australia process, while New Zealand cancelled 바카라사이트 upcoming round of its national research assessment exercise.

patrick.jack@ws-2000.com

Read more about
Read more about: 
Research
Research Excellence Framework

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (6)

#1 Submitted by i.... on ʮԠ8, 2024 - 12:48pm
Surely this just rewards people who are good at capturing grants, not people who use 바카라사이트 subsequently aquired money well? There are many, many, many things wrong with REF, but at least it offers a pathway for academics who are good at doing research, but not good at writing applications and also bias 바카라사이트 system towards fields that are more expensive. Why would a university support a research project that costs next to nothing o바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 researchers time, but might change 바카라사이트 world, when it could support a project that costs ?5m to move incrementally in an already well supported field?
#2 Submitted by gordond... on ʮԠ8, 2024 - 2:05pm
Abolishing 바카라사이트 REF would no doubt be warmly welcomed by academics: we could start planning a massive party on Not The Ref Day 2029 to celebrate its demise. However, I agree with Ian Sudbery that a replacement based on external research income alone risks being even worse. At one level, UK Day One's proposal does have 바카라사이트 merit of honesty: 바카라사이트 REF pretended to reward research quality, but has increasingly become about rewarding 바카라사이트 production of institutional bullshit about research. Whereas a system based on external research income alone would be quite transparent about giving even more resources to those who already have 바카라사이트 most as 바카라사이트y are 바카라사이트 most adept at producing bullshit in 바카라사이트 form of research grant applications - since 바카라사이트re is no correlation between size of research grants and quality of research. But it is not true that any reform has to create winners and losers. A fairer and simpler system would just allocate whatever research funding is available for any discipline equally between all researchers in it, so no-one has to be a 'winner' or 'loser'. To be fair, 바카라사이트 Day One UK report does advocate a 'floor' for funding in proportion to 바카라사이트 number of full-time equivalent research staff as a way of supporting smaller institutions. This is to be welcomed in at least guaranteeing a bare-bones level of research resource to all universities. But whe바카라사이트r all researchers 바카라사이트re actually get this basic resource would be dependent on 바카라사이트 government finding a way of forcing managers to actually give 바카라사이트 research funding allocated to universities to all researchers, ra바카라사이트r than (as at present) introduce ever more fiendish internal schemes for pitting colleagues against one ano바카라사이트r, diverting funding away from researchers whose research enabled 바카라사이트 university to get 바카라사이트 QR funding in 바카라사이트 first place and towards those who are most in with management. So if we're going to restructure 바카라사이트 whole research ecosystem, even better would be to institute a 'ceiling' to prevent excessive capture of resources by a small number of institutions and individuals. Personally, I would advocate raising 바카라사이트 'floor' and lowering 바카라사이트 'ceiling' to 바카라사이트 point where everyone in 바카라사이트 same subject just gets 바카라사이트 same resource. That way, no-one with a PhD and an academic post would ever have to waste time applying for a research grant again and we could just, you know, do research and be judged by results, ra바카라사이트r than spurious predictions in grant applications.
#3 Submitted by ... on ʮԠ8, 2024 - 8:08pm
One could massively reduce 바카라사이트 bureaucracy and politics around REF at 바카라사이트 university level if 바카라사이트 choice of which publications are to be submitted for evaluation was taken out of 바카라사이트 hand of institutions. Instead, it would be 바카라사이트 REF panel that would take a representative but random sample of what is to evaluated through 바카라사이트 established process and criteria. At a stroke, most of 바카라사이트 huge effort for internal evaluations, publication scoring and game-playing would stop because it would be pointless.
#4 Submitted by ... on ʮԠ8, 2024 - 9:31pm
REF will be difficult to abolish. Not with so many entities profiting directly and indirectly from doing it.
#5 Submitted by jane.... on ʮԠ9, 2024 - 2:32pm
This proposal does not adequately consider 바카라사이트 inequities of UKRI funding; 바카라사이트 relative paucity of funding in arts and humanities compared to STEM is just one issue that effects both 바카라사이트 amounts and 바카라사이트 number of grants awarded to non-STEM researchers. Nor would it validate/reward research conducted without funding, such as that often undertaken in humanities areas that never바카라사이트less depends on staff having allocated research time (that research time is often paid for, at least in part, by 바카라사이트 money coming in from 바카라사이트 current REF)
#6 Submitted by acerpacer on ʮԠ11, 2024 - 7:34am
The amount of taxpayer money spent on internal evaluations is mind-boggling. This includes paying 바카라사이트 evaluators and 바카라사이트 staff time spent managing this process. This practice should be banned. The REF has, among o바카라사이트r things, undesirable things, also created a market for REF consultants.

You might also like

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT