REF 2014 and the Business & Management community Mike Pidd Chair: sub-panel C19 (Business & Mgt...
-
Upload
aldo-bowcutt -
Category
Documents
-
view
226 -
download
0
Transcript of REF 2014 and the Business & Management community Mike Pidd Chair: sub-panel C19 (Business & Mgt...
REF 2014 and the Business & Management community
Mike PiddChair: sub-panel C19 (Business & Mgt Studies)Department of Management ScienceLancaster University Management [email protected]
Overview Purposes of the REF
(the Research Excellence Framework)
REF versus RAE 2008 Panels Staffing
Outputs Environment Impact Timetable
2
You can always blame the REF
REF purposes: official statement
FUNDING: inform research funding allocations by the four UK HE funding bodies (approximately £2 billion per year)
ACCOUNTABILITY: for public funding of research so as to demonstrate its benefits
QUALITY INDICATORS: provide benchmarks and reputational yardsticks
3
REF principles: official statement Expert, peer review panels Equity: all types of research and forms
of output across all disciplines shall be assessed on an equal basis
Equality: HEIs encouraged to submit the work of all their excellent researchers
Transparency: assessment criteria and procedures, and outcomes to be published in full
4
5
RAE 2008: how did it work?
Researchenvironment (20%)
Esteem & impact indicators (10%)
Quality profile
Weighted and aggregated across each submission
e.g.Research incomePhD studentsStaff development
Quality level 4* 3* 2* 1* u/c
% research activity 10 40 35 15 0
Nossex Busines
s School
Research outputs: 4 per person (70%) Peer
review
6
REF 2014: how will it work?
Researchenvironment (15%)
Impact (20%)
Quality profile
Weighted and aggregated across each submission
e.g.Research incomePhD studentsStaff development
Quality level 4* 3* 2* 1* u/c
% research activity 21 38 37 4 0
Nossex Busines
s School
Research outputs: 4 per person (65%) Peer
review
Spot thedifferences
Overview of REF assessment framework
7
Overall quality
Outputs
Maximum of 4 outputs per researcher
Impact
Template and case studies
Environment
Template and data
65% 20% 15%
Key changes since RAE 2008 Includes assessment of impact Removed esteem as a distinct element Structured approach to research environment Fewer UOAs/panels operating more consistently
Only 4 main panels (main panel C for BMS) No separate panel for Accounting & Finance
Strengthened equality and diversity measures Revised eligibility criteria for staff Some UOAs will make (limited) use of citation
data ... But not in BMS (C19)
Increased ‘user’ input on panels; and an integrated role for additional assessors
Publication of overall quality profiles in 1% steps
8
Panels and sub-panels
9
REF 2014: roles of panels MAIN Panel C
Panel criteria & working methods Oversight during assessment process Consistent application of overall assessment
standards Sign off final profiles
SUB-PANEL C19: Business & management studies Limited, specific variations in criteria &
working methods Conduct the assessment Recommend final profiles
Add extra assessors & users during 2012/13
10
Structure of main panel C: REF 2014
11
Janet Finch Chair Manchester/Keele
Cara Aitcheson Sports-related studies Edinburgh
Hastings Donnon Anthropology & dev studies Queens Belfast
Gillian Douglas Law Cardiff
Colin Hay Politics & int studies Sheffield
Peter Neary Economics etc Oxford
Alan Penn Architecture, built env & planning
UCL
Mike Pidd Business & mgt studies Lancaster
Andrew Pollard Education Inst for Education
Keith Richards Geog, env studies & archaeology
Cambridge
John Scott Sociology Plymouth
Peter Taylor Gooby
Social work & social policy Kent
UK academic members (sub-panel Chairs):
Structure of main panel C: REF 2014
12
Trevor Barnes Geography UBC
Frans Berkhout Innovation & sustainability
VU Amsterdam
Francois Borguignon
Economics Paris School of Economics (prev Chief Econ, World Bank)
Paul Finch Architecture & planning
Commission for the Built Environment
Herbert Kritzer Law & politics Univ Minnesota
Jone Pearce Business & mgt studies
UC Irvine
Mark Robson Various Bank of England
Sue Rossiter Education NFER
Martin Walsh Charity sector Oxfam
Paul Wiles Social work & social policy
Oxford (formerly Home Office)
Sharon Witherspoon
Social policy Nuffield Foundation
International and user members
Sub-panel C19: business & mgt studiesMike Pidd1 Lancaster Chair & member of Main Panel C
John Arnold Sheffield Martin Laffin Durham
Jan Bebbington St Andrews Alan Marsden Ex-Arup
David Blackaby2
Swansea Kathrin Moeslin
Erlangen-Nuremberg
Jane Broadbent3 Roehampton Peter Naude Manchester
Robert Blackburn
Kingston Andy Neely Cambridge/Cranfield
Chris Brooks Reading Caroline Oades
ACCA
Colin Eden Strathclyde Richard Thorpe
Leeds
Paul Edwards Birmingham Ian Tonks Bath
Guy Fitzgerald Brunel Caroline Tynan Nottingham
Keith Glaister Sheffield Terry Williams Hull
Mark Jenkins Cranfield Hugh Willmott Cardiff
13
2: Joint with Economics sub-panel 3: Deputy Chair
Staff eligibility & other rules
14
Staff: Eligibility & requirements Category A staff
Academic staff with a contract of at least 0.2 FTE, on payroll of the HEI 31 Oct 2013 primary employment function of either ‘research
only’ or ‘teaching and research’ Category C staff:
Employed by an organisation other than an HEI Have contract or job role including research, Research primarily focused in the submitting unit on
31 Oct 2013 Will contribute to the quality profile but not volume
for funding Research assistants are only eligible by
exception Institutions MUST produce an Equality &
Diversity Code Four outputs per person unless special
circumstances
15
Staff: Individual circumstances
Clearly defined (rules)
Qualified as ECR Part-timers Maternity, paternity or
adoption leave Secondments of career
breaks outside HE
Complex (EDAP) Disability Ill health or injury Mental health conditions Constraints relating to
pregnancy or maternity in addition to maternity leave
Childcare or other caring responsibilities
Gender reassignment Other circumstances
relating to characteristics protected by the Equality Act 2010
Reduced # outputs allowed
16
Early career researchers
Date at which the individual first met the definition of an ECR:
Outputs may be reduced by up to:
Between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2010 1
Between 1 August 2010 and 31 July 2011 2
After 1 August 2011 3
Part-timers and career breaks
Equiv months absent from work (1 Jan 2008 to 31 Oct 2013):
For part-time staff, average FTE worked (1 Jan 2008 to 31 Oct 2013):
Outputs may be reduced by up to:
14 – 27.99 0.601 – 0.8 1
28 – 48.99 0.301 – 0.6 2
49 or more 0.3 or less 3
Output tariffs: individual circumstances
17
NOTE: % availability need not be same as % used in Volume calculation
Other individual circumstances Maternity, paternity & adoption
Outputs may be reduced by 1 for each period of statutory leave over the REF period.
Also by 1 for each extra period of such leave lasting 4 months or more.
Complex circumstances REF EDAP (Equality & Diversity Advisory
Panel) Recommend any reductions to main panel
Chair, who will decide on any reductions Sub-panels
Must abide by main panel Chair’s decision Will not be told of the circumstances
18
Outputs
19
Eligibility of outputs Must be a product of research (see
REF defn) All forms of output are welcome and
will be treated equally Into public domain between 1/1/08
and 31/12/13 BUT may include pre-published work
(e.g. online first or working paper if (and only if) Pre-published in 2007 but in print form after
1/1/08 Not included in RAE 2008.
20
Co-authored outputs Recognised to be increasing as collaboration
grows in Main Panel C disciplines Where outputs are co-authored/produced,
submitting author expected to have made a substantial contribution
Sub-panels wish to receive the fullest picture of a submitting HEI’s research, hence Co-authored/produced outputs may be submitted
twice in the same UOA by the same HEI MUST be accompanied by a statement explaining
the substantial and distinctive contribution of each of the submitting authors
Still unclear about pre-published, co-authored work if not used by submitting author/institution in RAE 2008.
21
Double weighted outputs May be requested for
outputs of extended scale & scope
MUST have supporting statement
Sub-panels will assess the request separately from its quality
If accepted: counts for 2 items
1 reserve allowed for each double weighing request
22
Environment
23
Vitality: reflects the existence of a thriving, dynamic and fully participatory research culture based on a clearly articulated research strategy, displayed both within the submitting unit and in its wider contributions, and in terms appropriate to the scale and diversity of the research activity that it supports
Sustainability: understood in terms of the extent to which it is capable in the future of continuing to support and develop such research activity as defined in the quality levels, both within the submitted unit and the discipline more generally
Environment assessment criteria
24
Research environment: 2 aspects1. Narrative (template) with 5 sections
i. Overviewii. Research strategyiii. Staffing strategy & development, including
research studentsiv. Income, infrastructure & facilities v. Collaboration & contribution to the
discipline
2. Quantitative data: based on HESA stats: e.g. doctoral degrees, income ...
25
Impact
26
Impact defined An effect on, change or benefit to the economy,
society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia
Includes an effect, change or benefit to: The activity, attitude, awareness, behaviour,
capacity, opportunity, performance, policy, practice, process or understanding
Of an audience, beneficiary, community, constituency, organisation or individuals
In any geographic location whether locally, regionally, nationally or internationally
Excludes impacts on research or the advancement of academic knowledge within HE; and impacts on teaching or other activities within the submitting HEI
27
Examples of impact: main panel C
28
Impacts on: Examples:
Creativity, culture and society
Enhancements to heritage preservation, conservation and presentationShaping or informing public attitudes and values
Economy, commerce or organisations
Improved products, processes or workplace practicesEnhanced corporate social responsibility policies
EnvironmentChanges in public awareness or behaviourBusiness operations have been changed to achieve environmental objectives
Health and welfare
Development of policy or practice with regard to health services or social care provision
Practitioners and professional services
Influence on professional standards, guidelines or trainingPractitioner debate has been stimulated by research findings
Public policy, law and services
Legislative change or effect on legal practiceInfluence on policy (by government, NGO or private organisation)Impact on democratic participation or access to justice
Research impact submission & criteria
29
Impact templateHow is impact facilitated? Context, approach(es) to impact, strategies & plans, relation to case studies
Impact case
2
Impact case
1
Impact case
3
Impact case
4
Impact case
nCRITERIAReach: understood in terms of the extent and diversity of the communities, environments, individuals, organisations or any other beneficiaries that have benefitted from or been affected (not geographic, but relative to potential domain)Significance: understood in terms of the degree to which the impact has enriched, influenced, informed or changed policies, opportunities, perspectives or practices of communities, individuals or organisations
Maximum of 4 pages per case. Must demonstrate that the unit’s research
made a distinctive contribution to the impact claimed during the REF period 1/1/08 to 31/12/13
Evidence for the impact claimed must be cited May include qualitative, quantitative or material Should be independently verifiable wherever possible
Case studies should not describe activity alone, but should make clear links between activity and impact claimed
Research on which claimed impact is based Must have taken place at the submitting HEI Should meet the definition of 2* (internationally
recognised) Underpinning research published since January 1993
Impact cases30
REF 2014 Timetable31
2011• Panels appointed
(Feb)
• Guidance on submissions (Jul)
• Draft panel criteria for consultation (Jul)
2012• Final panel criteria and methods (Jan)
• HEIs submit codes of practice (Jul)
• Pilot of submission system (Sep)
• Requests for multiple submissions (by Dec)
• Survey of submission intentions (Dec)
2013• Launch REF
submissions system
• Recruit additional assessors
• Staff census date (31 Oct)
• Submissions deadline (29 Nov)
2014• Panels assess
submissions
• Publish outcomes (Dec)
REF 2014: important dates
Date Significance
31/12/13 End of REF period for outputs, impact template & cases and research underpinning impact
29/11/13 Submissions due
31/10/13 Census date for staff
31/7/13 End of REF period for research students, research income & environment
01/01/08 Start of REF period for outputs, environment & impact template & cases
01/01/93 Start of period for research underpinning impact
32
Questions & discussion
Likely sub-panel workloads (based on 2008)
Sub-panel
FTE staff/member
16 Architecture & planning 45
17 Geography & architecture 67
18 Economics & econometrics 47
19 Business & management studies
159
20 Law 100
21 Politics 62
22 Social work & social policy 50
23 Sociology 47
24 Anthropology & development studies
31
25 Education 81
26 Sports-related studies 38
34
Source: REF team
HEFCE QR Funding weighting
4* 3* 2* 1* 0
09/10 based on RAE 2008
7 3 1 0 0
11/12 based on RAE 2008
9 3 0.294 0 0
Based on REF 2014 ? ? ? 0 0
35
Distinct possibility that QR weighting for 2* will be zero after 2014
36
Main
pan
el I: C
hair
David
Otl
ey
34: Economics & econometrics (David Greenaway, Nottingham)
35: Accounting & finance (Andy Stark, MBS)
36: Business & management (Mike Pidd, Lancaster)
37: Library and information mgt(John Feather, Loughborough)
Ray Paul
DavidBlackaby
JaneBroadbent
Structure of main panel I: RAE 2008
Sub-panels did the workMain panel had oversight