Written by Kamini Vellodi and Damian Sutton, CHEAD REF Forum Co-Leads.
We kick started the year with a lively discussion at our online REF Forum, where we were joined by Professor Anne Boddington, REF 2029 UoA Sub Panel Chair. The focus of the session was on the updates that REF announced before Christmas following its unpausing. There has been a return to some decisions made in the last exercise, and some welcome clarification, but thankfully there are no radical changes nor big surprises. There is even some welcome news – for instance, around portability.
It will no doubt be a relief to the sector that the submission burden seems to be less than was originally feared (for instance, with the removal of accompanying unit level statements for CKU and E&I; the removal of the minimum 2* requirement for impact case studies). But of course, we will need to wait for the guidance on panel criteria and working methods and submissions, due to be published in Autumn 2026, for the crucial detail.
The discussion centred on the updates to CKU (contributions to Knowledge and Understanding), SPRE (Strategy, People and Research Environment) and E&I (Engagement and Impact). Weightings of these three elements have adjusted – with CKU up to 55%, and SPRE down to 20%, putting more emphasis once again on outputs. Particular conversation points were:
Contributions to Knowledge and Understanding
Portability: Limited portability has been introduced for long-form and extended process research outputs for a period of 5 years. Whilst we are awaiting details on the definitions of ‘long-form’ and ‘extended process’, this is welcome news and likely to be particularly significant for practice research.
Multi-component outputs: will likely continue to be a significant proportion of output submission to Unit 32. It is confirmed that multiple weighting of outputs has not been introduced, and that REF is remaining with single and double weighting.
Strategy, People and Research Environment
The move away from ‘culture’ as a defining metric reflects the results of the PCE pilot – namely, the realisation that evidencing and measuring culture is not straightforward! SPRE will be assessed at both institution and unit level, and the unit level statement is similar to the Environment statement of REF 2021.
But what is new is that the institutional level statement will now count for 60% of the overall score. This effectively means that more weight is being put on how institutions explain their wider strategy and research infrastructure. This will mean that UoA leads will naturally need to speak up for art and design. The indicators for the statements will be decided during the criteria setting phase, and it is indicated that these will be ‘the most effective and least burdensome to collect’.
Questions remain about the relation between the unit level and institutional level statements, and how this will work, and be assessed. It emerged in the discussion that these will need to be aligned, and it was noted that there is potential for this to favour smaller specialist institutions/units, and disadvantage larger scale submissions.
The new ‘statement of representation’ in the SPRE Unit level statement is seen as a welcome move to enable institutions to make the case for the specificity of their research environment, and how the research undertaken and outputs produced represents the disciplines and the research diversity of the unit, and an opportunity to recognise the broader research community.
Engagement and Impact
No big changes here, but the introduction of the word limit for Impact case studies to support parity, and the removal of the minimum 2* output requirement, are no doubt welcome.
A lack of clarity inevitably remains around a number of issues. Of particular note is how institutions will need to evidence the ‘substantive link’ to any submitted output. In light of the decoupling, how will this affect the function of cross referral?
Interesting questions remain around how ‘engagement’ is understood within the panel and across other panels, where engagement may be seen as quite different elements of research and impact. No doubt clarification will come with the publication of the panel criteria and submissions.
Professor Boddington was keen to remind us that panel members are our peers, and that research assessment is being made in an environment not of penalisation, but of recognition and support. The session was another reminder of the value of coming together as a sector to exchange, raise problems, share best practice, and collectively grow in confidence as we navigate REF together.
