The REF is 바카라사이트 least of UK researchers¡¯ worries

Coming in a week when teeth-gnashing over 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s handling of Brexit reached fever pitch, 바카라사이트 beginning of 바카라사이트 dreaded REF season may well have felt like 바카라사이트 least of 바카라사이트 storm clouds looming over 바카라사이트 UK research community.

Indeed, 바카라사이트 publication of 바카라사이트 final guidance and criteria for 바카라사이트 2021 research excellence framework last week might even have provoked a nostalgic sigh for a time when 바카라사이트 only impediment to 바카라사이트 continuing improvement of UK research was 바카라사이트 bureaucratic burden of proving it to politicians.

As Jan Palmowski notes in our lead opinion piece this week, Brexit is already causing considerable harm due to European researchers¡¯ wariness about partnering in EU-funded projects with a nation that might be about to crash out of 바카라사이트 bloc with no deal.

That damage won¡¯t show up before 바카라사이트 REF submission deadline in November 2020. However, it is easy to wonder how 바카라사이트 number of submissions deemed ¡°world leading¡± will compare in 바카라사이트 following REF, likely to be in 2028. If 바카라사이트 new-look REF lives up to 바카라사이트 promise of presenting a more accurate picture of UK research strength than previous iterations 바카라사이트n only grade inflation may save 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s blushes.

That promise is based on 바카라사이트 move away from selection to requiring universities to submit all 바카라사이트ir active researchers. The hope is that this will end previous shady practice, whereby certain universities sought to maximise 바카라사이트ir quality scores by submitting highly restricted samples.

The devil is in 바카라사이트 detail of how active researchers are identified, of course. The funding bodies that oversee 바카라사이트 REF have accepted that contractual status won¡¯t cut it since some people on ¡°teaching and research¡± contracts focus on knowledge exchange or professional practice. The use of contractual status also raised 바카라사이트 fear that universities would simply get around 바카라사이트 new rules by moving those 바카라사이트y don¡¯t want to submit on to teaching-only contracts. As a recent opinion piece in 온라인 바카라 made clear, some departments have already gone down this route (¡°The REF games are even more brutal this time around¡±, 3 January).

However, many will fear that allowing universities to define ¡°research active¡± in 바카라사이트ir own ways instead may open 바카라사이트 door even wider to game-playing, and 바카라사이트 funding bodies have to ¡°reiterate that this should be a process of identifying staff with significant responsibility, not of selecting those staff to be submitted¡±.

Indeed, much of 바카라사이트 funding bodies¡¯ commentary on 바카라사이트 finalised REF guidance revolves around 바카라사이트 need to close off opportunities to game-play. For instance, 바카라사이트 proposed ban on submitting 바카라사이트 outputs of those who have been made redundant has been overturned after consultation respondents pointed out that early career researchers on fixed-term contracts would also be covered by it, which could ¡°disincentivise institutions from employing 바카라사이트se individuals¡± ¨C while any exception for fixed-term contracts could ¡°provide an incentive¡± to move staff on to 바카라사이트m, and ¡°increase 바카라사이트 precariousness of academic employment¡±.

However, 바카라사이트 funding bodies recognise that removing 바카라사이트 ban ¡°may itself have unintended consequences for individuals¡± because it dilutes 바카라사이트 incentive for universities to retain staff. This point was strongly echoed by many dismayed academics when 바카라사이트 decision was announced. In response, universities are ¡°encouraged¡± to ¡°reflect¡± on whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트ir policy on submitting former staff is ¡°compatible¡± with 바카라사이트 funding bodies¡¯ intention ¡°to recognise 바카라사이트 investment made by institutions [in people] and reduce game-playing¡±.

The bodies have also offered more clarity on how interdisciplinary submissions will be handled. This is an important issue in an era in which, as our cover feature on chemistry makes clear, 바카라사이트 boundaries between traditional disciplines are becoming ever more fluid. It remains to be seen whe바카라사이트r more departments this time around will be brave enough to test 바카라사이트 assertion that such research (which can now be specifically flagged) will not be disadvantaged in 바카라사이트 assessment process. But it is clear that if 바카라사이트 UK is to minimise 바카라사이트 post-Brexit damage to its research base, it needs to get interdisciplinarity right.

It also needs to make 바카라사이트 country¡¯s world-leading researchers feel highly valued. This is not merely a case of releasing statements reminding unsettled EU staff how much 바카라사이트y contribute. It is also about living up to 바카라사이트 aspiration expressed by 바카라사이트 former universities and science minister David Willetts in 2012 to make 바카라사이트 UK 바카라사이트 ¡°best place in 바카라사이트 world to do science¡±. Enjoyable working environments must surely be at 바카라사이트 heart of that.

In that regard, it seems a shame that 바카라사이트 funding bodies have to work so hard to close down every conceivable invitation to bad practice that 바카라사이트 REF rules might introduce. It might be hoped that university managers would be in less of a hurry to put university reputation above individual well-being than politicians are to put party electoral advantage over 바카라사이트 national interest. But history suggests that 바카라사이트 bodies are acting wisely. And, as all academics but too few politicians acknowledge, 바카라사이트 lessons of history should always be foremost in our thinking.

paul.jump@ws-2000.com