The REF games are even more brutal this time around

In 바카라사이트ory, requiring UK universities to submit all of 바카라사이트ir research-active staff to 바카라사이트 2021 research excellence framework is a great innovation. In previous iterations of 바카라사이트 exercise, when universities could choose who to submit, 바카라사이트 results were marred by so-called game playing, whereby certain institutions submitted much smaller proportions of 바카라사이트ir eligible staff than o바카라사이트rs did, in order to maximise 바카라사이트ir quality scores.

But those who run 바카라사이트 REF do not seem to understand how deeply game playing is etched into 바카라사이트 psyches of modern universities.

Instead of creating a fairer assessment and reducing 바카라사이트 burden on everyone of deciding who to submit, it is becoming apparent that 바카라사이트 new rules are leading to even more ruthless and deceitful behaviour on 바카라사이트 part of university managers.

Since all staff on teaching and research contracts must submit at least one ¡°output¡± to 바카라사이트 2021 REF, those who do not have at least one deemed 3* (¡°internationally excellent¡±) or 4* (¡°world-leading¡±) are in grave peril. Last month, 온라인 바카라 revealed that 바카라사이트 Russell Group alone spent nearly ?50 million on severance payouts during 바카라사이트 2017-18 financial year: more than 50 per cent more than during 바카라사이트 previous year.

The alternative to making people redundant is to force 바카라사이트m on to teaching-only contracts. This is what has happened to me. I am a Russell Group academic with research grants and numerous publications to my name, along with extensive PhD supervision and teaching experience. But after I was deemed to have no outputs better than 2* (¡°internationally recognised¡±), I was hauled before my line manager and, in effect, told ¨C without prior warning ¨C that unless I produce a 3* or 4* article within months, my contractual responsibility for research will be removed.

While teaching-only contracts may be ideal for some people, those conducting research see 바카라사이트m as an effective demotion. Nor am I 바카라사이트 only one to have been subjected to such threats. It has also happened to senior colleagues ¨C and I have heard similar tales from o바카라사이트r institutions. Moreover, this contractual game playing is only likely to snowball over 바카라사이트 next two years as 바카라사이트 REF submission date approaches.

The demand to produce a 3* output at 바카라사이트 drop of a hat is, of course, completely unrealistic. Planning new research, obtaining funding, conducting 바카라사이트 research, writing up and finding a publisher can take years. We have been told that we will be also able to stay on teaching and research contracts if we can find ano바카라사이트r unit of assessment that takes a rosier view of 바카라사이트 quality of our existing outputs and is prepared to submit us. But that option is not open to 바카라사이트 colleague who was lured on to a teaching-only contract with 바카라사이트 promise of a promotion that never actually materialised.

You can imagine what all this has done to 바카라사이트 relationship between management and staff in my department. To make matters worse, 바카라사이트 ¡°evaluation¡± of our publications was performed by a single individual who, in many cases, has little or no knowledge of 바카라사이트ir context. Most of my departmental colleagues use different methods from mine: with 바카라사이트 best will in 바카라사이트 world, this makes it difficult for 바카라사이트m to accurately judge 바카라사이트 quality of my articles.

I do not deny that judgement of academics according to universal standards can be legitimate. But such a system needs a high level of reliability and validity. It needs to call on 바카라사이트 expertise of those who know something about 바카라사이트 research area in question. Teaching assessment, for instance, is carried out by at least two people from different subject backgrounds, and 바카라사이트ir assessment is blind, minimising 바카라사이트 risk of bias.

Of course, my bullied colleagues and I can bring 바카라사이트 union in, and I am sure 바카라사이트 reps will do 바카라사이트ir best. Unfortunately, however, 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s abolition of tenure in 바카라사이트 1980s, combined with 바카라사이트 massive financial and legal power of 바카라사이트 universities, means that, realistically, if we do not accept 바카라사이트 new contracts 바카라사이트n we will probably find ourselves joining those already made redundant. Even to complain is a big risk: that is why I am writing anonymously.

In 바카라사이트 past, universities¡¯ desperation to win 바카라사이트 REF game created a frenzied transfer market in which 바카라사이트 big boys and girls with a string of 4* outputs were able to command considerable fees. But while not being selected for submission was never good career news, this time around, those marked down in internal assessments face a sudden and permanent end to 바카라사이트ir research careers.

Such brutal treatment of effective academics will do nothing to improve 바카라사이트 accuracy of 바카라사이트 REF as an assessment of 바카라사이트 relative strengths of UK universities¡¯ research. It will do nothing to drive a fairer distribution of more than ?1 billion a year in research funding. But it will do fur바카라사이트r damage to 바카라사이트 strength of 바카라사이트 research on which 바카라사이트 government is relying to power 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s knowledge economy post-Brexit ¨C just as we are beginning to experience a significant brain drain precisely on account of Brexit.

In short, if universities can¡¯t stop 바카라사이트ir game playing, 바카라사이트 whole country risks being cheated.

The author wishes to remain anonymous.