Research Excellence Framework: Equality and Diversity Training Dr Tim Brooks and Jill Smit Research, Development & Commercial Services September/October 2012 Based on best practice materials developed by the Equality Challenge Unit (

A method to assess the quality of research in UK universities, examining outputs (65%), environment (15%) and impact (20%). Operated by the REF team, based at HEFCE, for the four UK HE funding councils. Assessment through ‘expert review’ – academics, research users, etc. HEIs select subject areas (units of assessment), staff members and research outputs to submit. Outcomes – a quality profile – used to benchmark and to allocate quality-related research funding (QR) What is the REF?

Individually or in your groups Look at the statements Are they true or false? Quiz

Equality and diversity legislation and definition Key changes from RAE 2008 to REF 2014 in terms of equality and diversity Key points of our Code of Practice on the selection of staff Handling and processing individual staff circumstances What this means for your role! Outline of the session

Equality Act 2010 has consolidated, strengthened and harmonised previous equalities legislation. Equality and diversity measures for REF 2014 have been strengthened by comparison with RAE Training on equality and diversity and the REF helps us to ensure that: – staff eligible for submission are treated fairly and are not discriminated against; – we fulfil our obligations under equalities and employment law. Context and aim of training

Diversity: recognising that everyone is different in a variety of visible and non-visible ways, and that those differences are to be recognised, respected and valued (Equality Challenge Unit, 2012). Equality: ‘a fundamental part of a fair society in which everyone can have the best possible chance to succeed in life’ (Discrimination Law Review, 2007). Equality and diversity requirements are different to considerations of eligibility, quality and fit as defined in the REF Panel Criteria and by us (see Code of Practice). Defining equality and diversity

HEFCE analysis* of RAE 2008 staff selection showed: Selection rate for staff with a declared disability was lower than that for staff without a declared disability; 67% of male permanent academic staff were selected, in comparison to 48% of women; There was a particularly low rate of selection for women aged 30-50; The selection rate of black staff was lower than that of staff from other ethnic groups. Lessons from RAE 2008 * Source:

Analysis of our RAE 2008 staff selection shows: 56% of Category A staff submitted were male, 44% female, while our academic population at the time* was equally split by gender. 63% of Category A staff submitted were employed full-time, 37% part-time, while our academic population at the time* was split 80/20 in favour of full-time. Lessons from RAE 2008 * Nearest available staff demographic data, as at 01 September Staff submitted to RAE 2008 were in post on 31 October 2007.

Nine ‘protected characteristics’ are defined: age; disability; gender reassignment; marital or civil partnership status; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief; sex; and sexual orientation. Discrimination on any of these grounds is illegal. Various types of ‘prohibited conduct’ are defined: harassment; victimisation; direct discrimination; and indirect discrimination. Discrimination can be by association, by perception, or arising from a disability. Positive discrimination is also banned. Key changes since RAE 2008: Equality Act 2010

‘Esteem’ has been removed as a distinct element of the assessment. A revised approach to data collection of ‘research environment’ metrics has been introduced. Means staff selection for REF is only determined by: – volume of outputs, taking into account any legitimate reduction; – output eligibility, quality and fit. No other factors need to be considered. Key Changes since RAE 2008 REF rules and regulations

REF also recognises, in addition to the nine ‘protected characteristics’ defined by the Equality Act 2010: Paternity and adoption; Part-time and fixed-term employment status; Early career researchers; Junior clinical academics (without CCT) (in UoAs 1-6 only). Key Changes since RAE 2008 REF rules and regulations

In your groups: Look at the different terms; Look at the definitions and examples cards; Match them up! Activity 1: Equalities terminology and prohibited conduct

Code of Practice covers process for selection of staff for submission to REF 2014 and explains individual and committee roles and responsibilities. Code drafted and approved internally over summer 2012; presently with REF Equality and Diversity Advisory Panel for approval. Decisions on institutional submissions to be made by the Vice Chancellor. Role of all other designated staff to help identify UoAs, create, test and refine submissions. Anglia Ruskin University and the REF Highlights of the Code of Practice

REF Strategy Group: Advises VC on overall direction and coordination, identification of UoAs and selection of staff. Decides on output volumes required for complex circumstances. Confirms REF rules followed. Reports to Research Committee. REF Data Group: Supports UoA Convenors, Directors of Research, Deans etc in collecting relevant data, and advises on use of REF submission software. Reports to REF Strategy Group. REF UoA Convenors Group: Shares best practice, peer reviews draft submissions, helps resolve any issues. Anglia Ruskin University and the REF Highlights of the Code of Practice

All eligible staff will be asked to complete a form to declare any circumstances that may have affected their productivity (volume of output) over REF period. ‘Clearly defined’ where period of absence is clear e.g. maternity leave, part-time working, early career researcher status. ‘Complex’ where period of absence is less clear-cut e.g. ill-health disrupting research for a sporadic period, combinations of ‘clearly defined’ circumstances. Processes for handling clearly defined and complex circumstances

For both ‘clear’ and ‘complex’ circumstances, an appropriate reduction is calculated by determining the period of absence and applying tariffs in the REF guidance. ‘Clear’ circumstances will be handled by RDCS team, using tool built into REF submission software. ‘Complex’ circumstances will be considered by REF Strategy Group, which will arrive at a judgement based on the case made. Others welcome to discuss any issues but not to give definitive judgements. Processes for handling clearly defined and complex circumstances

In your groups: Look at the six brief case studies; Decide which of these are ‘clearly defined’ and which are ‘complex’; For the ‘clearly defined’ examples, use the information in the handout to calculate an appropriate reduction in outputs; For the ‘complex’ examples, what additional information might be useful to help arrive at a judgement? Activity 2: Identifying clearly defined and complex circumstances

RDCS team will deal with ‘clearly-defined’ circumstances via REF submission software. RDCS team will anonymise ‘complex’ declarations for consideration by REF Strategy Group. Decisions on legitimate reductions in outputs will be communicated to researcher, copied to UoA Convenor, Directors of Research, Heads of Department. Reductions in outputs do not change decisions on output, eligibility, quality and fit. Processes for handling clearly defined and complex circumstances

Information on individual circumstances is sensitive (and) personal information protected under Data Protection Act. RDCS team have taken online Introduction to Data Protection module. Disclosure forms are to be returned in hard copy format to RDCS team and will be held securely. RDCS team will handle data entry of circumstances on to REF submission system; REF 1a/b sections will be unavailable internally except to RDCS team. REF 1a/b information will be seen by REF panel members (defined in Code). Processes for handling clearly defined and complex circumstances

Understanding and observing our Code of Practice. Ensuring decisions on selection are made on the basis of eligibility, quality and fit rather than because of an individual’s personal characteristics. Being aware of circumstances that may entitle staff to a reduction in research outputs. Considering equality and diversity provisions when discussing REF submissions with staff, and ensuring individual circumstances treated appropriately in such (necessary) discussions. Implications for your role

If discussing individual circumstances: Information involved should not go beyond what is normally required to: – manage staff absence; – make reasonable adjustments (including referral to occupational health); – ensure health & safety and staff wellbeing at work; – manage extenuating personal circumstances. Remember data protection expectations! Implications for your role

In your groups: Consider the scenarios. Do you have any concerns? How do you advise the member of staff? Activity 3: REF Scenarios

REF Assessment Framework and Guidance on Submissions (02/2011) and Panel Criteria and Working Methods (01/2012) – available via ‘Publications’ at Equality Challenge Unit REF materials their example ‘complex’ disclosures and judgements are in your packs Our Code of Practice – in your packs or online at Introduction to Data Protection e-module – contact Jackie Barlow More information

Dr Tim Brooks (REF Manager, RDCS) / x4305 Professor Caroline Strange (Assistant Director, RDCS) / x3125 Mrs Jill Smit (Research Support Coordinator, RDCS) / x4208 Any Questions?