The Research Excellence Framework Assessment framework, guidance on submissions and panel criteria

1. The Research Excellence FrameworkAssessment framework, guidance on submissions and panel criteria

2. Presentation outline • Overview • REF panels • Impact

3. Overview: Purpose of the REF • The REF is a process of expert review • Its purpose is: • To inform research funding allocations by the four UK HE funding bodies (approximately £2 billion per year) • Provide accountability for public funding of research and demonstrate its benefits • To provide benchmarks and reputational yardsticks

4. Funding • Drive direct funds via Funding Councils – 4*/3* weightings – and indirectly via reputational gain and ‘league tables’

5. Overview: The assessment framework 65% 15% 20%

6. Overview: Guidance and criteria Comprehensive information and guidance is set out in: • Assessment framework and guidance on submissions (July 2011): • Sets out the information required in submissions and the definitions used • Panel criteria and working methods (Jan 2012): • Sets out how panels will assess submissions • Refined following consultation in 2011 The above documents set out the official guidelines for the REF. These slides provide a summary of key points but remember that the official guidelines are the key documents.

7. Overview: Submissions • Each submission in a UOA provides evidence about the activity and achievements of a ‘submitted unit’ including: • Staff details (REF1a/b/c) • Research outputs (REF2) • Impact template and case studies (REF3a/b) • Environment data (REF4a/b/c) • Environment template (REF5) • A submitted unit may, but need not, comprise staff who work within a single ‘department’ or organisational unit

8. REF panels

9. REF panels: Main and sub-panel roles There are 36 sub-panels working under the guidance of 4 main panels. Membership is published at www.ref.ac.uk

10. REF panels: Main Panel D

11. Sub-panel 35: Music, Drama, Dance and Performing Arts Maria Delgado, Queen Mary Simon McVeigh, Goldsmiths Robert Adlington, Nottingham Michael Alcorn, QUB Paul Allain, Kent Paul Banks, RCM Steve Bottoms, Manchester Jeanice Brooks, Southampton Martin Clayton, Durham Nicola Dibben, Sheffield Christopher Fox, Brunel Maggie Gale, Manchester Stella Hall, Independent Neil Hyde, Royal Academy of Music Paul Hughes, BBC Symphony Orchestra Stephanie Jordan, Roehampton Robin Nelson, Central SitaPopat, Leeds Adrienne Scullion, Glasgow Sarah Street, Bristol

12. REF panels: Additional assessors Additional assessors will be appointed to extend the breadth and depth of panels’ expertise: • Both ‘academic’ assessors (to assess outputs) and ‘user’ assessors (to assess impacts) will be appointed • Assessors will play a full and equal role to panel members, in developing either the outputs or impact sub-profiles. They will be fully briefed, take part in calibration exercises and attend the relevant meetings: • Some appointments will be made in 2012 where a clear gap has already been identified • Further appointments to be made in 2013, in the light of the survey of institutions’ submission intentions

13. Impact

14. Impact: Definition of impact • Impact is defined broadly for the REF: an effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia • Panels recognise that impacts can be manifest in a wide variety of ways, may take many forms and occur in a wide range of spheres, in any geographic location • Panels provide examples of impact relevant to their disciplines, intended to stimulate ideas - not as exhaustive or prescriptive lists

15. Impact: Some examples of impact • Enhanced professional standards, ethics, guidelines or training • Improved health or welfare outcomes • Improved risk management • Public debate has been shaped or informed by research • More effective management or workplace practices • Improved business performance • Improved quality, accessibility or efficiency of a public service A social enterprise initiative has been created • Research has enabled stakeholders to challenge conventional wisdom • Production costs have reduced • Changes to the design or delivery of the school curriculum • Improved forensic methods or expert systems • Enhanced preservation, conservation or presentation of cultural heritage • Improved access to justice, employment or education • Policy debate or decisions have been influenced or shaped by research • Improved management or conservation of natural resources • Jobs have been created or protected • Research has informed public understanding, values, attitudes or behaviours • Organisations have adapted to changing cultural values • The policies or activities of NGOs or charities have been informed by research • Changes to legislation or regulations • Enhanced corporate social responsibility policies • Levels of waste have reduced • Enhanced technical standards or protocols • Changes in professional practice • A new product has been commercialised • New forms of artistic expression or changes to creative practice

16. Impact: Submission requirements 20% of the impact sub-profile 80% of the impact sub-profile

17. Impact: Case studies • Each case study should: • Clearly describe the underpinning research, who undertook it and when • Provide references to the research and evidence of quality • Explain how the research led/contributed to the impact • Clearly identify the beneficiaries and define the impact • Provide evidence/indicators of the impact • Provide independent sources of corroboration • All the material required to make a judgement should be included in the case study • Submitted case studies need not be representative of activity across the unit: pick the strongest examples

18. Impact: Underpinning research • Each case study must be underpinned by research that: • was produced by staff while working in the submitting HEI • is evidenced by outputs published between 1 Jan 1993 to 31 Dec 2013 • meets the quality threshold of at least equivalent to 2* • made a material and distinct contribution to the impact (there are many possible ‘routes’ to impact, but in each case a distinct and material contribution must be shown) • Once the panel is satisfied that these criteria have been met, it will assess and grade the case study in terms of the ‘reach and significance’ of the impact

19. Impact: Evidence of impact • Case studies should provide a clear and coherent narrative linking the research to the impact • Including evidence most appropriate to the case being made • Evidence may take many different forms, including quantitative (where possible) and qualitative. Panels provide examples, which are not exhaustive or prescriptive • Key claims should be capable of verification. Independent sources of corroboration should listed, to be used for audit purposes

20. Impact: Assessment criteria • The criteria for assessing impact are reach and significance • In assessing a case study, the panel will form an overall view about the impact’s reach and significance taken as a whole, rather than assess each criterion separately • ‘Reach’ is not a geographic scale. Sub-panels will consider a number of dimensions to the ‘reach’ as appropriate to the nature of the impact. • In assessing the impact template, the panel will consider the extent to which the unit’s approach is conducive to achieving impacts of ‘reach and significance’

21. Impact: Assessment criteria * Each main panel provides descriptive account of the criteria

22. Case studies • See http://www.ref.ac.uk/background/pilot/ • See http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/decisionsonassessingresearchimpact/01_11.pdf • Title – the title of the case study should be succinct and snappy; it’s a title not a summary! • Summary – the summary should be a summary of the impact not a summary of the project or the research or the person’s career. • Format – where appropriate use subheads, bullet points and other formatting tools that can help the reader navigate your impact case study. Ensure that your case study contains all the information that they will need. • People – remember that the task is to describe impact, not to reflect on the esteem of the people involved. Focus on the actions and processes of the impact. • Make the case – explain what happened that would not have happened unless you did the research pursued the impact: that is, describe what event(s) occurred, what change(s) was (were) made... and identify who cared? Describe the impact not the esteem or the significance of the research per se; describe what changed as a result of the research being shared/picked up/used. Remember the ‘so what?’ question.

23. Case studies • USP – focus on the particular and the specific not the general. • Check the case and data – ensure that the template gives a clear sense of the project’s highlights – what were the main, ‘gold standard’ achievements of the impact? Focus on the real strengths, the distinguishing features, the differentiators. • Big picture – remember that there’s the general Impact Template – that will outline the impact strategy and culture and context for the whole UoA and this project within that... so keep in mind that the single task for the case study template is to describe and advocate the case study. • Think about the audience – describe what may be obvious to you but what won’t be known by the reader. Description is key to this task – describe why your contribution was key – what was unique and special about what you did and what changes that made. • Focus – depth – distinctiveness – specificity – supporting evidence (funding, data, etc – benchmarks • Panel can only make judgements on evidence – audience numbers, sales figures, funding leveraged from other bodies, web hits, tourism data, behaviour change within organisation leading to efficiency, enhancement, more activity. • Who will read? A user working with an academic member.

24. Further information www.ref.ac.uk(includes all relevant documents)