Oi, REF! Photograph: Alex Livesey/Getty Pictures
Yesterday the ultimate paperwork had been uploaded for UoA9 (Unit of Evaluation 9, which is “Physics”) for the REF (Research Excellence Framework) for UCL (we discourage expanding that acronym, apparently). This is not as thrilling as the first additional-galactic neutrinos, but it is a big part of Lifestyle and Physics for Uk academics, and it may well be of curiosity to other individuals even if only for a sense of schadenfreude.
From all above Uk academia over the previous months there have been complaints, a lot of complaints, about the framework itself, about the function imposed, and about the aggressive management techniques it looks to have engendered in some universities.
I don’t have too many grumbles about the framework, myself. Most of the assessment (65%) is based on “analysis outputs”, and a bit (twenty%) on “effect”, mostly on situation studies (with evidence) of how our investigation has a had positive aspects beyond academia. The outputs in physics are overwhelmingly journal papers, and we already have people of program. The case scientific studies were a bit of a pain to put with each other, but now kind a helpful resource, backing up some of the factors a strong study base is a good factor for a country to have.
An interesting facet of the “effect” side of factors is that impact through public engagement undoubtedly counts – it isn’t going to all have to be spin-out organizations and patents. You may remember I even wrote an write-up asking how much impact individuals felt this site has. Thank you to those gave me some feedback on that, some of which I have utilized. Nevertheless, the REF is assessing the analysis accomplished by universities, not the way they weblog about it, or without a doubt commercialise it. So in fact the only bits of “Daily life & Physics” which aid are the bits based on UCL investigation (quite a huge fraction in fact). The flip side is that effect of our analysis nonetheless counts, even if we didn’t supply the effect ourselves. So since we have a share in the Higgs discovery, we have a share in all the public effect of the discovery, even if the encounter (or the blogger) on the display is not from UCL. It sounds a bit odd at initial, but it makes sense. It is even now the study that is being assessed – but in this corner of the REF, it is getting assessed on its affect past academia.
Concerning the operate concerned, well, it was considerable. But in the previous I have place with each other some really massive grant applications (for instance for the United kingdom involvement in ATLAS and its upgrades), and by comparison the REF was not too bad – and I had a whole lot much more support from experts at UCL for this.
The aggressive management techniques which have triggered complaints from some institutions haven’t been deployed at UCL, at least not that I’m conscious of, and surely not in Physics. Two items appear to lead to difficulty: creating plenty of (occasionally temporary) appointments motivated by the REF deadline and excluding some lively researchers from the REF submission since according to some internal evaluation their study outputs are not good enough.
We did appoint a fairly lot of people in Physics in excess of the previous two many years, but this was driven by a long term method not a quick term REF deadline. We are even now appointing, even though the deadline has passed. And as to excluding men and women – everybody eligible is in, apart from one particular man or woman who is in fact a single of the new appointments, and who we appointed knowing total effectively submission was not an alternative. Hardly short-termist.
So some grumbles but not also a lot of. And right here are the promised great items:
one. I am a reasonably new head of department. Getting ready a summary of what we do and what we strategy to do (for the REF5 document which contributes to the last 15% of the assessed material) was really an efficient way for me to discover.
2. It asks study academics to submit their 4 very best papers because 2008. This is hardly “publish or perish” in a discipline in which most lively researchers publish numerous papers a year. Publishing somewhat fewer but greater papers is not a poor factor to motivate, in my viewpoint.
three. Not like grants, where you get assessed primarily based on promises of what you will do in the long term, the REF is retrospective. It holds you accountable, but the use of the money ultimately awarded is not completely prescribed in advance.
four. Since we do have some really good men and women whose investigation has more influence past academia than inside it, and given that I think this is a worthwhile and valid activity for a university, it is good that this is recognised in the framework.
five. Most of the info (grant revenue, analysis pupil numbers, prizes, conferences…) is the kind of information we use for other functions too and should have been recording anyway. I consider the method has enhanced UCL’s “back workplace” efficiency.
six. The greatest point is clearly that, barring last minute slips, my role as the UoA lead is quite much carried out with now. Even though the role of the bad, selfless reviewers is about to get started in earnest.
I consider the most crucial factor to keep in mind is that the REF is only a metric, not a technique, and it is assessing only one particular of the numerous items universities do. We study. But we also educate, train, innovate, and engage with numerous diverse audiences, from nearby communities to politicians to worldwide organisations and companies. If you accept that analysis can and must be assessed, then the REF does not appear like a terrible way of undertaking it to me.
Of course, ask me again when I see how properly, or badly, we do…
[hyperlink to picture]
[website link to picture]