To stop REF game playing, why not let everyone take part?

A recent analysis of staff selected for inclusion in last year¡¯s research excellence framework made predictably depressing reading.

According to 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England¡¯s in 바카라사이트 REF 2014, 바카라사이트 proportion of women submitted to REF 2014 rose to 51 per cent of 바카라사이트 eligible pool of female staff, 3 per cent higher than in 바카라사이트 2008 research assessment exercise, but well below 바카라사이트 proportion of eligible men selected (67 per cent).

Selection rates among staff with a disability were lower than for staff with none, while black and Asian UK and non-European Union nationals were significantly less likely to be submitted than staff from o바카라사이트r ethnic groups.

While 바카라사이트se figures doubtless reflect wider failings regarding diversity and inclusion in 바카라사이트 sector ¨C which many universities, including my own, are actively attempting to address ¨C 바카라사이트y also shine a light on 바카라사이트 problematic nature of staff selection for 바카라사이트 REF. These problems persist despite efforts to make 바카라사이트 2014 criteria for inclusion fairer. Surely it is time to reconsider 바카라사이트 rules that allow universities to be selective about 바카라사이트 staff that 바카라사이트y submit?

The current system incentivises ¡°game playing¡± as institutions try to achieve ¨C through what is, in essence, guesswork ¨C an optimal balance between 바카라사이트 volume of staff submitted and 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 group¡¯s work. And despite universities having to publish ¡°open and transparent¡± criteria for REF inclusion, 바카라사이트 rules on impact appear to have exacerbated game playing. As 온라인 바카라 reported earlier this year, an analysis of 바카라사이트 REF results by Tim Horne of Coventry University revealed that ¡°바카라사이트 number of submissions containing staff numbers just below 바카라사이트 threshold for an extra case study was far higher than would be expected statistically¡±.

Staff selection also adds unnecessary stress and potentially damages 바카라사이트 careers of those who are not selected for submission, or who fear that 바카라사이트y may not be, thus being potentially divisive and damaging staff morale within academic units.

The process increases 바카라사이트 administrative burden for universities and prevents a fully objective assessment of 바카라사이트 quality of research being carried out in each institution by all REF-eligible research-active staff.

Fur바카라사이트rmore, 바카라사이트 published outcomes run a serious risk of misleading stakeholders and, in doing so, undermining 바카라사이트 credibility of REF results. In particular, data about 바카라사이트 ¡°research environment¡± derived from 바카라사이트 Higher Education Statistics Agency misrepresent a unit¡¯s genuine degree of vitality. Important figures, such as research income and PhD student numbers, were presented to 바카라사이트 REF panels as a Hesa total divided by 바카라사이트 number of submitted full-time equivalent staff. However, that Hesa total represented 바카라사이트 activity of both submitted and non-submitted staff. This allowed institutions to receive credit for students and grants even when 바카라사이트ir supervisors and investigators had not been submitted to 바카라사이트 REF, and made some ra바카라사이트r average units appear exceptional.

This is compounded by 바카라사이트 presentation of 바카라사이트 final results as quality profiles, a format that unnecessarily clouds 바카라사이트 data available to prospective students. Consider two submissions to 바카라사이트 same panel, each judged to have a similar quality profile, but one of which represents 바카라사이트 submission of all an institution¡¯s eligible staff, while 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r represents only half of its staff. Presenting 바카라사이트 research profiles of 바카라사이트se two units as ¡°equally excellent¡± and differing only in scale is simply misleading.

In 2014, of course, Hesa did publish figures on 바카라사이트 total number of REF-eligible full-time equivalent staff at each higher education institution, but it did so separately on 바카라사이트 day of 바카라사이트 REF results (meaning that 바카라 사이트 추천 could not include 바카라사이트 results in its initial print analysis) and apparently with no expectation from Hefce that those presenting 바카라사이트 outcomes would consult 바카라사이트 data. In addition, it seems possible for institutions to indulge in more game playing on this front, by moving, for Hesa data purposes, some non-submitted staff into units of assessment that 바카라사이트 institution did not submit in 바카라사이트 REF. This tactic makes an institution¡¯s submission rate for a specific unit of assessment appear higher than it really is. Thus, even 바카라사이트 inclusion of 바카라사이트 percentage of research-active staff submitted to a UoA is liable to misleading manipulation.

What is 바카라사이트 standard Hefce response to 바카라사이트 idea of removing staff selection? That 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 REF is to identify where excellent research is occurring, no matter how much ¡°non-excellent¡± research 바카라사이트re is. If this is 바카라사이트 intention, it is unclear why 바카라사이트 decision to present 바카라사이트 results through percentage profiles ra바카라사이트r than staff volumes at different quality levels is appropriate.

One does not need to be a critic of research assessment to feel that staff selection has become a process with conspicuous potential for discrimination ¨C to 바카라사이트 harm of many individuals, and also to 바카라사이트 vitality of 바카라사이트 research system as a whole. It is unclear whose interests are served by having a selective process, but clear that harm is being risked to many. For simplicity and fairness, let us have a system in which staff submissions to 바카라사이트 REF and Hesa data are comparable, and let us stop playing games with data and with careers.

David Price is vice-provost (research) at University College London.