CHEAD returned a response to the REF Consultation on 6th October 2023. The response was informed by Trustees, our Director of the Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange Alliance, Dr Sian Vaughan and in consultation with Professor Anne Boddington.
Here is a summary.
We welcome retaining the current UoA structure. We encourage the inclusion of work in more experimental, practice-based and interdisciplinary fields which is characteristic in the fields of Art and Design.
Volume measure
CHEAD broadly welcome the direction of change for REF2028 and intentions to increase emphasis on culture and people within environment. We recognise that this will ultimately be a positive move towards clearer processes. However, the timing of the gathering of the HESA data and announcement of the final volume measures for each unit as currently described will lead to increased rather than decreased levels of uncertainty and administrative burdens across the sector, especially where department-based HESA data do not map neatly onto UoA-based submission intentions.
How Significant Responsibility for Research (SRR) will be determined will need to be reviewed by all HEIs, particularly those that are not ‘research intensive’ or are early stage in developing their research mission, infrastructure and environment.
Substantive link
Clarity is required as to what is and is not acceptable. It would be helpful to stipulate not only the employment fraction (0.2FTE) but to ensure the link is meaningful and sustained. This could be extended to include industrial/business/cultural links, co-supervision of PhDs, advisory roles, and those in the engagement space with policy and public/civic engagement or enabling impact activities. Clarity is needed about key concepts (engagement, public engagement, representativeness).
UoAs
It is imperative that all Universities, sector wide, can configure their research within UoA’s that are meaningful, integral and reflect the research environment(s) and cultures they have sought to develop. UoA32 covers a broad range of sub-fields, often within different schools and departments in an institution and there could be increased administrative burden in evidencing “representativeness” across such multiple academic units. HESA codes do not align with REF UoA’s, and it is unclear precisely how alignments will be considered and what data elements will be used. In UoA 32, the breadth of sub-disciplines means that research activity is often spread across multiple academic units being found in differing schools, departments, and centres. The HESA categorisations, JACS codes, and UoA descriptors do not align for arts, media and design and there will be significant additional administrative burden on HEIs to try to align data to match the reality of research practices and cultures. HESA data is rarely in the control of subject disciplines and those administering central HEI systems are less likely to be cognisant of the nuances of difference at subject level, for example as to whether the nature of research in architecture is more aligned to design (UoA32) or built environment (UoA13), and whether work in film is creative practice such as artist’s film (UoA32), film production practice (UoA33) or cultural study of film (UoA34). This will disproportionately effect submitting units within larger HEIs such as the high proportion of UoA32 submissions from post-92s. We call for more clarity, early resolution, complete transparency, and precise instructions to ensure all HEIs are well informed as to what data and what codes are used as well as how the data drawn from HESA will be used. It is imperative to make clear the formulae for HESA data calculations early.
EDI
Diversity is intersectional, multiple and multi-dimensional and there could be unintended outcomes as the current plans are presented. Those with protected characteristics or from underrepresented groups may also be researching in fields that are less mainstream, so leading to a narrowing rather than extending of opportunities. This may lead to differential investment or support for career development which is a concern.
Output submission
There appears no rationale in the new criteria to alter prior practice in respect of PhD candidates.
Impact case studies
There is sector and discipline support for the principle of reducing the case study demands for small units. There is some concern that impact, and engagement are not the same and there is a need to state definitions that distinguish them and are pertinent across the spectrum of HEIs and disciplinary fields.
Institutional and disciplinary level statements
These could disproportionately effect both small specialist institutions and units submitting to UoA32 from larger HEIS. For submitting units within larger multi-disciplinary HEIs, we support the specialist nature of support required for creative disciplines with embedded practice traditions, but are concerned where this may not be able to feature as strongly in institutional level statements constrained by word counts and the need for breadth of disciplinary coverage.
Covid 19
There have been some profound impacts of Covid and Long Covid on HEIs and individuals and it is important that this is monitored, retained and considered. Producing regular and systematic Equality Impact Assessments as a means of monitoring the impact of Covid on staff health and wellbeing maybe helpful but will add further burden. Wherever possible, it would be preferable to encourage submitting HEIs to draw on existing sources of data rather than create additional burden.