Towards REF 2021 REF Awayday 2016 Imperial War Museums Duxford 26 October 2016

One year on: developments since Duxford 2015 Roderick Watkins October 2016

Stern Review HE & Research Bill Brexit External context Stern Review HE & Research Bill Brexit Internal developments REF preparations Wider developments ‘Green Paper’ & strategic planning

External context Stern Review

Stern Review: Key recommendations External context Stern Review: Key recommendations 1 All research active staff should be returned in the REF

Stern Review: Key recommendations External context Stern Review: Key recommendations All research active staff should be returned in the REF Outputs should be submitted at Unit of Assessment level with a set average number per FTE but with flexibility for some faculty members to submit more and others less than the average

Stern Review: Key recommendations External context Stern Review: Key recommendations All research active staff should be returned in the REF Outputs should be submitted at Unit of Assessment level with a set average number per FTE but with flexibility for some faculty members to submit more and others less than the average Outputs should not be portable

Stern Review: Key recommendations External context Stern Review: Key recommendations 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.

Stern Review: Key recommendations External context Stern Review: Key recommendations 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. Impact must 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

Stern Review: Key recommendations External context Stern Review: Key recommendations 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…

Stern Review: Key recommendations External context Stern Review: Key recommendations 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… That individual Unit of Assessment environment statements are condensed, made complementary to the institutional level environment statement and include those key metrics on research intensity specific to the Unit of Assessment

External context Stern Review Next steps: HEFCE consultation around “detailed proposals which take forward the recommendations” NB additional issues including 5* rating and funding formulae (intensity and/or power thresholds?)

Internal developments REF Preparations: Individual Research Reports RAND workshops ‘New’ ARRO External Reviewers REF stocktake 2016 Symplectic

Internal developments Wider developments: RIKE strategy Doctoral School RIDO Research Institute reviews

Internal developments Next steps: ‘Green paper’ Strategic Plan 2017 REF audit

Towards REF 2021 REF Awayday 2016 Imperial War Museums Duxford 26 October 2016

2016 Stocktake Overview and introduction to the breakout groups Dr Tim Brooks, Research Policy & REF Manager REF Awayday, 26 October 2016

Comparison with REF 2014 REF 2014 Stocktake 2016 UoAs 14 20 Staff headcount1 196 372 Outputs listed2 602 1484† Research income3 £9.73m £6.52m Doctoral awards4 171 124 Notes Stocktake 2016 headcount (of eligible academic staff) deduplicated, excludes UoA 34 data Stocktake 2016 outputs neither deduplicated nor checked for eligibility, excludes UoA 34 data Stocktake 2016 research income as declared in institutional accounts for 2013-14 and 2014-15 only Stocktake 2016 doctoral awards manually compiled from ASTRA for 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Staff engagement ALSS FHSCE LAIBS FMS FST Other All IRR only 23 33 20 8 24 108 IRR & Stocktake 59 52 30 11 99 251 Stocktake only 44 55 1 121 Total ‘engaged’ 126 105 50 178 480 Total staff 158 186 91 73 212 14 734 % ‘engaged’ 79.7 56.5 54.9 41.1 84.0 7.1 65.4 Refers to eligible academic staff. UoA totals exclude UoA 34 data IRR data as at 1/8/16. Total staff as at 17/8/16.

Multiple inclusions 44 individuals in two or three UoA stocktake submissions All but two UoAs have some multiple inclusion Most common in UoA 3 (17 individuals), UoA 22 (14 individuals) and UoA 23 (13 individuals). Excludes UoA 34 data.

Research outputs Including ‘multiple-included’ staff, 322 have 1 or more outputs 1484 staff research outputs, but are all eligible? Open Access – 322 (21.7%) in ARRO in full text format. 40 identified as ‘missing’. Excludes UoA 34 data

Impact and Environment Seven UoAs have identified more case studies than they need; five UoAs have identified fewer case studies than they need. Mix of approaches to Environment

Breakout discussions Units of Assessment? Staff engagement and inclusion? Outputs and open access? Environment? Impact of Stern’s proposals? External assessment? Process? Anything else you think is important and relevant …

Thank you Any questions? Dr. Tim Brooks, Research Policy & REF Manager, RIDO tim.brooks@anglia.ac.uk