In 2006, Professor Nicholas Stern led a review on the Economics of Climate Change. The review was a 700-page report and discussed the effect of global warming on the world economy. A decade later, we now have the report from another Stern review, a review of the Research Excellence Framework. When it was published in July, I was mightily pleased that it was only 56 pages. This meant I could read it almost in one sitting and certainly within 24 hours of its release.

I know there are many articles, blogs and twitter activity under #sternreview and, naturally, I have read all the published views and have been contemplating what this might mean for future assessments and for us at the University of Brighton. Stern proposes that the findings and recommendations are turned into concrete proposals upon which the sector can be consulted by the end of this year, i.e. within 4 months!!

There are, in total, 12 recommendations but the ones that have been the subject of most debate and are likely to strongly influence the shape of future submissions are those listed under Outputs; in particular, proposals on ‘Submission of all research active staff’ and ‘Outputs should not be portable’. So, allow me to talk about these two recommendations in this blog.

I am sharing my views on these points on two levels, as a researcher who has been returned to every exercise since 1996 and as a research leader responsible for our next submission.

Submission of all ‘Research Active’ staff – There are clearly those who strongly favour this approach and those who do not. The call for evidence during the review indicated moderate support from HEIs, individuals and other organisations. In terms of retaining a selective approach, there was equally moderate support among HEIs, but no or limited support from individuals and other organisations consulted. So, if the call for evidence response prevails, this may be a policy which will go forward next time round. Of course, the main issue here is whether this will lead to distinctive demarcation between research and teaching academic careers and, if so, does that matter? Should we not celebrate all that we do and ensure we have clear promotion paths for all? When it comes to staff contracts, I must say I am in agreement with a tweet made on this by David Sweeney from HEFCE which advocated that staff contracts need to be an honest statement of what the employer expects of its staff.

But, how do we define ‘research active’? In my previous institution as Director of Research, I attempted to do this, initially thinking we could have an institution-wide definition. I soon realised that this would not be the case and we ended up with three definitions across five faculties, one of which was: “

“A quasi inductive method is adopted to assess research active or engaged, which is defined as anyone who is undertaking research or transferring knowledge on a consistent basis (currently “consistent” not strictly defined) which is or is seeking to reach the public domain in some commonly understood to be appropriate form or other”.

Which makes me smile every time I read it.

Outputs should not be portable – This recommendation alarmed me most and my discomfort stems from two angles. Firstly, people move jobs. Take me, for example. Since the last exercise, I have published 4 papers in 2014, 8 in 2015 and 9 in 2016. Amongst these, there are at least 10 papers that I would wish to put forward to some sort of assessment prior to next REF submission. Would the University of Portsmouth return my publications now that I have left? What message would a REF sub-panel receive if many of the outputs submitted are by people who have left?
Secondly, there is the impact on the careers of many Early Career Researchers. In my previous post, I chaired all the appointment committees in my Faculty and the great majority of the appointments made were to very bright scientists who had a string of fixed term research contracts and were seeking to establish themselves on an open ended academic contract. The strength of their publications and their potential in future research assessment exercises was always considered. This was not ‘gaming’, in my opinion, and was more about creating opportunities for ECRs. We can now imagine a scenario where a mobile ECR might delay submitting a paper until they have moved institution! Will ‘under review’ be the new game plan?

To conclude, whether we like it or not, REF is here to stay and I, for one, welcome the review recommendation to support excellence wherever it is found.