1. Colin McInnes, Ryan Owens, Hannah Payne
The Stern Review
Colin McInnes, Ryan Owens, Hannah Payne

2. Background to Stern Burden of REF too high (£220M?) Problem of gaming
Late hiring of staff to boost performance
Selective submissions (‘Cardiff strategy’ + impact case studies)
Report not policy (consultation process; REF assessment in 2021)

3. Stern: general observations
Value of REF (increases quality and accountability; aids decision making)
Value of dual support system – keep QR
Structure of panels about right
Peer review stays; metrics ‘inform not replace’ (The Future Tide) though some flexibility for sub-panels
Greater recognition of inter-disciplinarity

4. Outputs All staff to be returned
Outputs collected at UoA level (2*N); min plus max (6?)
No need for special circumstances info
Outputs not portable- can be submitted by home institution when accepted

5. Impact
Broader definition of impact – engagement and pedagogy more explicitly included
A “sensible development” to allow a case study to be resubmitted with evidence of further impact
Small units had been penalised in REF2014
– therefore minimum of 1 case study
Failed to recognise cross/interdisciplinary work
– requirement for Institutional case studies to replace some UoA.

6. Environment Institutional statement to be assessed
How AU develops research capability, provides opportunities, motivates and rewards and contributes to wider academic community
UoA mix of narrative and metrics
No detail on which metrics, but grant capture and PhDs likely to be key

7. Initial thoughts for AU
Requirement for all research staff to have >1x 3* item
Greater emphasis upon accurate internal assessment
Fewer, higher quality items pro rata (monographs?)
Differential allocation of time for research between staff?
Departments to remain key UoAs
IRCs as basis of case inter-disciplinary studies? Too late?
Strong environment statement from AU required, supported by data on PhDs and research support.