REF2014 and Impact

1. REF2014 and Impact 10 NOV 2011 YVONNE FOX

2. Agenda • Research Excellence Framework • What is it and why is it important? • Key changes from RAE2008 • What we submit and what is assessed • Impact • Lancaster’s preparations • Code of Practice • Key dates

3. What is REF & why is it important? A process of expert review with expert sub-panels for each of 36 units of assessment (UoA). Primary purpose is to produce assessment outcomes as an overall quality profile for each institutional submission. Assessment outcomes will: • Inform the selective allocation of research funding (QR) to HEIs from 2015-16 • Provide benchmarking information and establish reputational yardsticks • Provide accountability for public investment in research and evidence of the benefits of this investment

4. Key changes from RAE2008 • Main panels reduced 15  4 UOAs/sub-panels from 67  36 • Greater consistency, standard weightings • Staff categories revised (A and C only, no B or D) • Explicit element to assess non-academic impact • Esteem no longer a separate element of assessment • Environment based on structured template • HESA data for research income/student PhDs awarded • Data not linked to returned staff • Some UOAs will use citation data (from Scopus) • Equality and diversity measures strengthened • Additional assessors appointed during assessment • Overall quality profiles in steps of 1% instead of 5%

5. What we submit • Research Active staff (Category A and C) • Cat. A: academic staff with a contract of employment ≥ 0.2 FTE, on the payroll on the census date (31 October 2013), primary employment function is to undertake either ‘research only’ or ‘teaching and research’ • Outputs (up to 4 publications per cat. A or C staff) • Impact case studies (1 per 10 staff + 1) • Impact statement • Environment data • Research Income (HESA research income data) • PhDs awarded (HESA student data) • Environment statement

6. What is assessed • For each UOA submission the sub-panels will assess: • The ‘originality, significance and rigour’ of the research outputs • 65% weighting of overall outcome awarded • The ‘reach and significance’ of the impact • 20% weighting • The ’vitality and sustainability’ of the research environment • 15% weighting

7. Impact • Impact - “the effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia” • Impact must have occurred between Jan ‘08 – Jul ’13 • Must be underpinned by excellent research (assessed as at least 2*) undertaken in the submitting UOA between Jan ’93 – Dec ’13 • Case studies must provide the evidence of the impact claimed • Important to consult panel criteria and working methods (due Jan 12)

8. Impact underpinned by research Research by an HEI Impact • Conducted by staff while at the submitting HEI • In the relevant UOA • Evidenced by output(s) between 1 Jan 93 – 31 Dec 13 • Whether or not submitted to the RAE or REF One or more individuals, teams or groups Quality that is equivalent to at least two star

9. Impact underpinned by research Impact Distinct and material contribution • No particular ‘model’ of impact generation is assumed: • May be direct, indirect, linear, non-linear, diffuse, planned, unplanned, etc. • May be the sole research contribution, or one of many • The HEI need not have been involved in ‘exploiting’ the research

10. Corroborating Sources of Impact • Case studies should include sources to corroborate specific claims about the impact, and the contribution of the unit’s research • Sources could include: • Documentation, web-content or reports (whether in the public domain or available from the HEI) • Details of individual ‘users’ who could be contacted by the REF team • Details of factual statements by ‘users’ that the HEI has, and can be made available to the REF team • Sources will be used for audit purposes only – not to inform the ‘grading’ of impacts

11. Preparations at Lancaster • REF Steering Group • Sub-group of the research committee • Preparing REF code of practice • Promoting equality and diversity • Fair and transparent process • Overseeing Mock REF exercise • Main decision making committee for REF2014 • Pure • REF module in development

12. Preparations at Lancaster • Mock REF • 17submissions (deadline 30 Sept 2011) • 18 panel meetings Oct – Nov (internals only) • 20 panel meetings Nov-Dec with external experts • Reports due Jan – Feb 2012 • Outcome of the Mock exercise: • To identify weaknesses and make plans for strengthening the submissions • To start discussions with staff on selection for REF2014 • REF Steering Group will identify issues that need addressing at University level

13. Code of Practice • Requirement by HEFCE • Must be submitted for approval in April 2012 • Drafted in consultation with HR • Principles of fairness, consistency and transparency • UMAG for approval, then Senate • CoP frames the decision making process in the context of the principles of equalities and diversity • Legal obligations – The Equality Act 2010 • Individual staff circumstances

14. Key dates • Outputs first brought into the public domain between 1 Jan 08 - 31 Dec 13 • Impact assessment period 1 Jan 08 – 31 Jul 13 • Underpinned by excellent research between Jan 93 – Dec 13 • Environment assessment period 1 Jan 08 – 31 Jul 13 • PhDs awarded between Aug 08 – Jul 13 • Research Income between Aug 08 – Jul 13 • Census date for staff – 31 Oct 13 • Submission date – 29 Nov 13 • Publication of outcomes – Dec 14