Current R& KE Issues David Sweeney Director (Research, Education and Knowledge Exchange) Liverpool 23 April 2015 @stevenhill

World-leading quality was found in diverse submissions and institutions across the UK Submissions from the 154 institutions ranged from 3 staff in a single subject to over 2,500 staff in 32 subjects The top quarter have at least 30 per cent of their work graded as world-leading (4*). Three-quarters have at least 10 per cent of their work graded as world-leading (4*).

The assessment celebrates the diversity of staff and excellent research of all types New arrangements were made for early career researchers and staff with other circumstances: 28% were submitted with circumstances, up from 13% in the RAE Their outputs were found to be of equally high quality Excellence was found across all forms of research including applied, practice-based, basic and strategic research: Interdisciplinary research was found to be of equally high quality Most impact case studies drew on research from multiple fields At least a quarter of journal papers involved collaboration across UK universities, and many involved overseas collaboration

For the first time, REF has demonstrated the impact of UK research in all subjects Over 250 research users judged the impacts, jointly with academic panel members. 44% of impacts were judged outstanding (4*). A further 40% were judged very considerable (3*). Impressive impacts were found from research in all subjects. REF shows many ways in which research has fuelled economic prosperity, influenced public policy and services, enhanced communities and civic society, enriched cultural life, improved health and wellbeing, and tackled environmental challenges.

Differentiation between institutions resulted from all three elements

Impact and other scores related, but not perfectly

Impressive impact was found across institutions with submissions of all sizes

Average profiles by main panel

The assessment produced more consistent results across subjects than in the 2008 RAE

Outputs by early career researchers and staff with other circumstances were found to be of equally high quality to other staff

Outputs identified by institutions as interdisciplinary Outputs identified by institutions as interdisciplinary* were graded equally to other outputs * Note that these represent a small proportion of interdisciplinary work that was submitted

Research income increased since the RAE in all main panels and from almost all sources

Income sources vary by main panel

Who Did Best?

Or Did They?

Recurrent research funding for 2015-16 QR should follow agreed 65:20:15 weighting (outputs:inputs:environment) QR should recognise world-leading 4* and internationally excellent 3* performance meaningfully REF outcomes shows 70% increase in 4* and 24% increase in 3* research activity In cash terms budget same as 2014/15 The 4*: 3* ratio will be amended to 4:1 from 3:1

Research funding 2015-16 continued STEM activity in REF exceeds RAE 2008 Share of funding for STEM maintained naturally; no justification for special “protection” 11% cross-subsidy from Main Panels C and D disciplines ended One year full transitional funding allocated to HEIs differentially affected by the removal of STEM protection. Funding for Psychology and Geography continue to be adjusted as before. Inflation uplift for National Research Libraries

Consultation on QR methodology likely for 2016-17 onwards

Research funding: Research Degree Programme allocation, 2015-16 Similar calculation of a “quality score” Additional one-off supplement of £24 million to help: Redress the real terms decline in funding per student Enhance research training Emphasise importance of investment in highest level of knowledge and skill Balance increased investment in PGT

Knowledge exchange funding for 2015-16 £160M budget comprises: £150M recurrent baseline £10M transitional supplement rolled forward for another year Allocations to be recalculated using latest data, but existing policy intent. Allocation will be notified separately

REF Futures – Key Issues The Process (Discrimination, Calibration) What the universities say… Outcomes What is ‘impact’ Metrics Internationalising the REF 21