It would have been hard to miss the announcement last week that the pause on REF 2029 has been lifted. As has been said, ‘pause’ was always a misnomer. Colleagues at the funders have been working hard, as evidenced by the glut of documents published. Research offices around the UK have continued preparing Codes of Practice, consulting with staff, and aligning strategies. This moment is still significant; we have taken the stabilisers off and are being guided along in a new direction.
For those preparing smaller scale submissions the announcement provided the welcome news that the proposal for a multi-track REF has been shelved. We argued strongly against it, for reasons of equitability and integrity of the assessment, emphasising the value of an ‘all-in’ REF to emerging, consolidating, and specialist institutions.
Alternative measures to support diverse submissions have been brought in and are to be welcomed. The reduction of the minimum number impact case studies required has been retained, a hard fought for change from REF 2021 that allows small submissions the flexibility they need to focus their effort on quality rather than quantity. Exceptions for small units are going to be extended, a useful mechanism for a wide variety of institutions to manage the resources they have available for REF submissions more effectively.
The transition from culture to strategy is potentially a good one for these types of institutions too. Strategy is more concrete, and in our experience already a well-developed mechanism used to articulate the value of research to a largely teaching focussed organisation. The choice to support research can be hard won, so a good actionable strategy that is regularly reflected upon is essential. In addition, sector initiatives and concordats that might be used as indicators for ‘good culture’ don’t always dovetail well to a small community of researchers in niche disciplines. The reshaping of this part of REF gives more latitude to all institutions to tell their story their way.
Portability will be permitted for longform and ‘extended-process’ research, within a five year period. This is a much needed change particularly for the arts and humanities, for interdisciplinary, and portfolio work. We will be watching the development of this policy carefully to ensure it is clear and avoids ambiguities that could have significant consequences for small submissions which might well rely on such outputs.
However, precisely because REF is for all institutions, it is a perennial challenge to create policies that don’t cause some level of consternation. Submissions of a single or a very small number of disciplines (or units, in REF parlance) will need to delineate the strategies and evidence that sits at the institutional level - 60% of the SPRE narrative - from that which pertains to the ‘unit’. Not a straightforward task for an institution that lives and breathes that discipline.
Dig into the guidance and we see that panels will decide whether to look at both institutional and unit level statements. In previous exercises we’ve seen quite different assessment approaches to small submissions by different panels. Surely it would be more equitable to just decide that both statements for these submissions need to be viewed together in all cases to reach a fair assessment.
There will of course be more to chew over, but the funders of REF 2029 have listened very carefully to the sector. GuildHE has welcomed constructive discussions about the REF across and between the sector representative bodies and mission groups, a positive if unintended consequence of the pause. These connections are going to be vital over the coming months. There will be no formal consultation on the guidance and we all need to raise queries and concerns without waiting to be asked. We look forward to continuing to collectively engage with colleagues and funders to build on the guidance and help make REF 2029 truly an assessment for all.