UK universities will be able to enter unlimited numbers of outputs from individual researchers into the next Research Excellence Framework (REF) despite concerns this shift will concentrate research in the hands of a small number of ¡°star performers¡±.

Confirming rules on research output submissions for REF 2029, the exercise also stood by its intention to decouple individuals from submitted outputs, ending the decades-old practice of requiring researchers to submit at least one output to the assessment.

That policy change, announced in the REF¡¯s initial decisions in June 2023, has attracted considerable criticism in subsequent consultations, with some sector bodies complaining that breaking the link between researchers and their outputs was unfair on staff.

It would hurt early career researchers (ECRs) and those on fixed term contracts, it was claimed, because research outputs would remain with institutions, even if the individual lost their job after the end of the two-year REF census window.

51³Ô¹Ï

Calling for a rethink on the portability of research outputs earlier this year, subject associations representing English studies warned how the new rule will enable the ¡°injustice¡± of institutions ¡°hold[ing] onto the outputs of staff they have sacked¡±, with the issue likely to affect arts and humanities researchers ¡°disproportionately¡±.

Ending the proposed cap on research outputs that an individual can enter into the REF ¨C which was five in REF 2021, with institutions having to submit 2.5 outputs on average per researcher ¨C ?has also been condemned. The Royal Historical Society ?that ¡°submission of an unlimited maximum of outputs by single individuals... risks concentrating research in the hands of a small number of ¡®star performers¡¯¡±.

51³Ô¹Ï

In detailed guidance published on 12 June, however, the REF confirmed that it would press ahead with its plans to decouple individuals from outputs in the assessment, including plans to end the maximum and minimum output requirements seen in previous exercises.

Instead, institutions will be required to demonstrate that their output submission is representative of their research activity within a unit of assessment, with REF panels scoring unit submissions and departmental procedures on representation, the guidance explains.

In a blog published alongside the guidance, Jonathan Piotrowski, head of REF policy, explained that the portability of research outputs had been ¡°one of the most prominent¡± aspects of consultation responses, describing it as a ¡°deeply nuanced issue where any single approach inevitably involves trade-offs¡±.

Defending the decision to ¡°shift our focus away from the individual and towards the environment where that output was created¡±, he argued that the institutional funding that follows REF excellence ¡°should follow the institutions that have genuinely provided and invested in the environment in which research is successful¡±.

¡°Researchers retain their CV, their publications, and their expertise ¨C these remain fully portable in every professional and academic sense for job applications, promotion and grant funding applications,¡± he added.

51³Ô¹Ï

Addressing concerns that non-portability could ¡°disproportionately affect ECRs, those in precarious employment or those facing redundancy, potentially hindering their ability to compete in the job market¡±, Piotrowski argued that ¡°in a system where portability is maintained, and in today¡¯s increasingly precarious environment...I cannot see that portability is protective, especially in difficult times."

¡°It creates incentives beyond the potential of the individual,¡± he said.

¡°We have heard that ECRs or redundant staff should be protected or have portability, however while this is attractive, it is just not possible where there is no reliable indicator or way of knowing who these individuals are,¡± he added, arguing that ¡°to advantage some groups will also disadvantage others¡±, including ¡°those with caring responsibilities [and] those who have experienced career breaks¡±.

51³Ô¹Ï

Warning about ¡°a REF model that inadvertently allows institutions to capitalise on outputs they did not enable¡±, Piotrowski said the ¡°rules of the REF must reflect that it is an assessment of institutions¡± and the exercise should ¡°measure how research is enabled, not only where it lands on a CV.¡±

Commenting on the REF guidance more generally, REF director Rebecca Fairbairn said the changes ¡°mark a significant step forward in how we recognise and assess research in the UK."

¡°By moving away from rigid staff census dates and embracing a broader definition of eligible employment, we¡¯re creating a more flexible system,¡± she continued.

¡°Focusing on disciplinary areas rather than individuals allows us to better reflect the collaborative nature of research and include the vital contributions of all staff, including research support staff such as technicians,¡± Fairbairn added.

51³Ô¹Ï

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com