Research marketing

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction plus a social media overreaction.

Tagged: stern

Making sense of Stern

  , , ,

📥  Research news, Sector news

The long-awaited Stern Review of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) was published last week which outlines a number of recommendations in advance of the next assessment submission.

This autumn we expect to see a consultation on the detailed guidance with the results published next summer 2017. REF submissions are still set to be collected in 2020 with the assessment and results earmarked in 2021. Read more about Stern here via the THE.

To help us make sense of Stern and its implications for Bath, Katy McKen (Head of Research Information and Intelligence) has helpfully put together this list of the 12 main recommendations covered by Stern:

  1. All research active staff should be returned in the REF;
  2. Outputs should be submitted at UoA level with a  set average number per FTE but with flexibility for some faculty members to submit more and others less than the average;
  3. Outputs should not be portable;
  4. Panels should continue to assess on the basis of peer review.  However, metrics should be provided to support panel members in their assessment and panels should be transparent about their use;
  5. Institutions should be given more flexibility to showcase their interdisciplinary and collaborative impacts by submitting ‘institutional’ level impact case studies, part of a new institutional level assessment;
  6. Impact should be based on research of demonstrable quality.  However, case studies could be linked to a research activity and a body of work as well as to a broad range of research outputs;
  7. Guidance on the REF should make it very clear that impact case studies should not be narrowly interpreted, need not solely focus on socio-economic impacts but should also include impact on government policy, on public engagement and understanding, on cultural life, on academic impacts outside the field, and impacts on teaching;
  8. A new institutional level Environment assessment should include an account of the institution’s future research environment strategy, a statement of how it supports high quality research and research-related activities, including its support for interdisciplinary and cross-institutional initiatives and impact. It should form part of the institutional assessment and should be assessed by a specialist, cross-disciplinary panel;
  9. The individual UoA environment statements are condensed, made complementary to the institutional level environment statements and include those key metrics on research intensity specific to the UoA;
  10. Where possible REF data and metrics should be open, standardised and combinable with other research funders’ data collection processes in order to streamline data collection requirements and reduce the cost of compiling and submitting data;
  11. That Government and UKRI could make more strategic and imaginative use of REF, to better understand the health of the UK research base, our research resources and areas of high potential for future development, and to build the case for strong investment in research in the UK;
  12. Government should ensure that there is no increased administrative burden to HEIs from interactions between the TEF and REF, and that they together strengthen the vital relationship between teaching and research in  HEIs.

To find out more about our last REF submission and research performance see here. If you have comments or questions about the process from here, please contact Katy.

Don't miss also Dr Richard Watermeyer's (Department of Education) article on Stern for The Conversation.