Webinar FAQ

We maintain regular communication with the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) and will continue to discuss key issues as raised in consultation responses. If HESA data is required for the next REF, we will work with HESA to make sure all guidance is clear and complete.

The consultation invites comments on the definition of research assistants and where they should be considered eligible for the next REF. We note some concerns about the clarity of the previous criteria in enabling consistency in practice across submissions, and a recognition of disciplinary differences relating to how independence is defined. We are seeking views on this issue, and any changes to the definition that may improve clarity in REF 2021.

Where full-time equivalence (FTE) is used to determine the total number of research outputs that need to be returned, part-time working would be reflected in the number of outputs required. Other individual circumstances (such as parental leave) would not be captured in the total number of research outputs required. The proposed decoupling of staff from outputs in the assessment is intended to provide flexibility to institutions to return more or less than the average number of outputs per staff member, and we are seeking views on whether this approach would provide sufficient flexibility to allow for individual circumstances. We welcome consultation responses that address equality and diversity considerations and consequences of these proposals, as well as across the proposals more widely. We will establish an Equality and Diversity Advisory Panel, to advise on the implications of the proposals and ensure those with protected characteristics are not disproportionately disadvantaged by the process that is implemented. 

The consultation considers whether it may be more appropriate to determine the number of eligible staff in the unit by calculating an average FTE over a set period, rather than on a census date. Such an average would take account of staff relatively new in post, and this would be reflected in the total number of research outputs required. Views are sought on these issues in the consultation.

The proposed decoupling of staff from outputs in the consultation means that a direct relationship may not always occur between staff who are included in the FTE and those associated with outputs. Some proposals in the consultation may affect this relationship, including whether the volume measure is derived from the average FTE of staff in the unit over a set period or from a single census date, and whether the minimum number of outputs per staff member should be zero or one. If a minimum of one output was required, the relationship would be more direct. However, the proposal that outputs are non-portable means that outputs in a submission could be associated with staff no longer employed by the institution (who may therefore not be included in the volume measure).

We are very interested to hear views on what an appropriate maximum should be, to achieve a balance between providing flexibility to institutions through a decoupled approach and limiting the extent to which submissions are based on the work of only a small number of staff.

We are interested in views in consultation responses on the arguments for and against a pro rata reduction in the maximum number according to FTE. 

The consultation proposes that an average of two outputs are returned per FTE member of staff in the unit. The proposal to decouple outputs from staff would give flexibility to institutions to submit more or less than this average for each staff member – we are suggesting from a minimum of zero or one up to a maximum of six. Views are sought on each of these proposals.

To manage panel workloads, in view of the proposal to return all research-active staff in the next REF, we are proposing that the average number of outputs submitted per FTE staff member is reduced to two. Where there is support for a larger multiplier, it is our view that sampling would need to be considered in more detail. We are seeking views on these issues in the consultation.

The consultation is open to any organisation, group or individual with an interest in the conduct, quality, funding or use of research. We welcome responses from early career researchers in relation to all aspects of the consultation, including the proposals on non-portability of outputs.

The role of the Interdisciplinary Research Advisory Panel (IDAP) during the criteria-setting phase of the exercise will be to advise the REF team, panels and UK funding bodies on developing and implementing the approach to support the submission and assessment of interdisciplinary research. The panel’s initial terms of reference relate to this period only. Its role during the submission and assessment phases of the REF will be determined in relation to the approach taken in the exercise to supporting interdisciplinary research further, and informed by the advice it provides at the end of the criteria phase. We have recently appointed a chair for IDAP and are currently in the process of appointing panel members. 

No, we are not proposing this.

We are inviting views in the consultation on additional output-level data, appropriate to the discipline, which could be used by the panels to support their assessment of outputs. We intend to work with the Forum for Responsible Metrics in exploring this further. The forum has published its initial advice on this issue to the funding bodies.

Each individual text box has a limit of 500 words.

In view of discipline-based differences in research approaches and methods, it is our view that standards of rigour relating to the conduct of research will be most appropriately defined by the assessing panels. In REF 2014 the criterion of ‘rigour’ for the assessment of outputs was defined at Main Panel level in the Panel Criteria statements, along with the criteria of ‘originality’ and ‘significance’. 

The time periods relating to impact for the next REF will not be the same as for REF2014. The consultation proposes that the assessment period for impact is 1 August 2013 to the end of July 2020. Therefore, current proposals do not allow for exactly the same impact case study to be submitted.