REF 2014 and the Business & Management community - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ref 2014 and the business management community n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
REF 2014 and the Business & Management community PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
REF 2014 and the Business & Management community

play fullscreen
1 / 36
REF 2014 and the Business & Management community
109 Views
Download Presentation
shawna
Download Presentation

REF 2014 and the Business & Management community

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. REF 2014 and the Business & Management community Mike Pidd Chair: sub-panel C19 (Business & Mgt Studies) Department of Management Science Lancaster University Management School UK M.Pidd@lancaster.ac.uk

  2. Overview • Purposes of the REF (the Research Excellence Framework) • REF versus RAE 2008 • Panels • Staffing • Outputs • Environment • Impact • Timetable You can always blame the REF

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Research outputs: 4 per person (70%) Research environment (20%) Esteem & impact indicators (10%) Quality profile RAE 2008: how did it work? Peer review e.g. Research income PhD students Staff development Weighted and aggregated across each submission Nossex Business School

  6. Research outputs: 4 per person (65%) Research environment (15%) Impact (20%) Quality profile REF 2014: how will it work? Peer review Spot the differences e.g. Research income PhD students Staff development Weighted and aggregated across each submission Nossex Business School

  7. Overview of REF assessment framework 65% 15% 20%

  8. Key changes since RAE 2008 • Includes assessment of impact • Removed esteemas 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

  9. Panels and sub-panels

  10. 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

  11. Structure of main panel C: REF 2014 UK academic members (sub-panel Chairs):

  12. Structure of main panel C: REF 2014 International and user members

  13. Sub-panel C19: business & mgt studies 2: Joint with Economics sub-panel 3: Deputy Chair

  14. Staff eligibility & other rules

  15. 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

  16. Staff: Individual circumstances Reduced # outputs allowed 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

  17. Output tariffs: individual circumstances NOTE: % availability need not be same as % used in Volume calculation

  18. 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

  19. Outputs

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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

  23. Environment

  24. Environment assessment criteria • 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

  25. Research environment: 2 aspects • Narrative (template) with 5 sections • Overview • Research strategy • Staffing strategy & development, including research students • Income, infrastructure & facilities • Collaboration & contribution to the discipline • Quantitative data: based on HESA stats: e.g. doctoral degrees, income ...

  26. Impact

  27. 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

  28. Examples of impact: main panel C

  29. Research impact submission & criteria Impact template How is impact facilitated? Context, approach(es) to impact, strategies & plans, relation to case studies Impact case 1 Impact case 2 Impact case 3 Impact case 4 Impact case n CRITERIA Reach: 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

  30. Impact cases • 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

  31. REF 2014 Timetable • 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)

  32. REF 2014: important dates

  33. Questions & discussion

  34. Likely sub-panel workloads (based on 2008) Source: REF team

  35. HEFCE QR Funding weighting Distinct possibility that QR weighting for 2* will be zero after 2014

  36. Structure of main panel I: RAE 2008 34: Economics & econometrics (David Greenaway, Nottingham) 35: Accounting & finance (Andy Stark, MBS) David Blackaby Jane Broadbent Main panel I: Chair David Otley 36: Business & management (Mike Pidd, Lancaster) Ray Paul 37: Library and information mgt (John Feather, Loughborough) Sub-panels did the work Main panel had oversight