Section 8: Assessment criteria – Strategy, People and Research Environment (SPRE)

SPRE assessment

The aim of the SPRE assessment is to evaluate how effectively institutions and units enable, sustain and enhance research, engagement and impact excellence through their strategy, people, and research environment. This section should be read alongside Section 7: SPRE guidance in the Guidance.

SPRE assessment criteria

The IL SPRE Panel and the sub-panels will assess SPRE statements according to the REF 2029 generic criteria and level definitions outlined in Annex A – Assessment criteria and level definitions in the Panel criteria. As in REF 2021, statements will be assessed using the criteria of vitality and sustainability.

Vitality will be understood as the extent to which an institution/unit supports and reflectively develops a thriving and inclusive research culture for all researchers, staff who enable or support research, engagement and impact, and research students. This can be evidenced through a clearly articulated and regularly evaluated strategy for research, engagement and impact; active participation in national and international research and user communities; and the ability to support and develop excellent postgraduate and postdoctoral researchers.

Sustainability will be understood as the extent to which the research environment maintains and strengthens the health, diversity and wellbeing of the institution/unit and its wider contribution to the local, regional, national and/or international research community. This includes investment in all researchers; staff who enable or support research, engagement and impact; research students; and infrastructure.

Both vitality and sustainability may be enhanced and evidenced though reflecting on and learning from experiences, sharing of learning and good practice and embracing innovation. 

Assessment overview

SPRE will be assessed at both institution-level (IL) and unit-level (UL). The two statements will be assessed and scored separately by the IL SPRE Panel and the sub-panels respectively. Sub-panels will be provided with IL statements (ILS) to contextualise their assessment of UL statements (ULS), but will not assess the ILS. The IL SPRE Panel may request to view ULS to clarify their assessment of ILS but will not assess ULS.

Both ILS and ULS will be informed by an unscored context section. For the ULS, the context section will include the Statement on the Research Community (SoC) and the Statement of Representation (SoR) (see sub-section 8.1., Section 7: SPRE guidance in the Guidance). Each of the ILS and ULS will be read as an integrated narrative across all sections, identifying and crediting the strength of evidence throughout. Guidance relating to each section is designed to help institutions place the most relevant evidence in the most appropriate place, though panels may use submitted information from across the whole statement to inform the score for each section. Each of the four scored template sections, corresponding to the section headings noted below, will be assessed, informing an overall sub-profile.

All panels will attach equal weighting to each of the four scored sections of the SPRE templates:

• strategy (25%)
• people (25%)
• income, infrastructure and facilities (25%)
• collaboration, engagement and impact (25%)

The panels’ assessment of the ‘People’ section of both the ILS and ULS will be informed by advice from the People and Diversity Advisory Panel (PDAP) on overall strengths or areas of concern, on the basis of the generic assessment criteria and procedures. The Research Diversity Advisory Panel (RDAP) will provide equivalent advice on aspects relating to research diversity, interdisciplinarity and responsible approaches to research, engagement and impact. 

In assessing both ILS and ULS, the IL SPRE Panel and sub-panels will consider submissions in the context of the size and type of institution to enable judgements to be made on an equitable basis.

Assessment will be informed by the information included in the ILS and ULS and the standard quantitative data and analyses – no further reading should be required. Institutions and units may include URLs in the statements only for the purpose of verifying or corroborating claims made in the statement. Panels will not follow URLs to access additional evidence or information to supplement the submission.

Template design

The IL SPRE – overview of assessment page and UL SPRE – overview of assessment page outline the structure of both SPRE templates and show which sections are assessed in each. The quantitative data and standard analyses (see sub-section 4., Section 7: SPRE guidance in the Guidance and sub-section 12., Section 8: Assessment criteria – SPRE in the Panel criteria) are positioned at relevant points in the table and labelled to indicate that they are not directly scored.

Both the IL and UL templates have the same overall structure, and in many places have similar language. However, the intention is still that the ILS is the primary place to discuss strategy and the ULS the place to discuss the implementation of strategy. Both institutions and units can use the unscored context section to define where relevant structures and support sit within the institution to contextualise the evidence presented in each statement. Institutions and units should use the optionality embedded in the templates to describe particular aspects of their environment within either the IL or UL template that best fits their institutional structure.

Where the language between the templates is different, this is intended.

As detailed on the IL SPRE – overview of assessment and UL SPRE – overview of assessment pages, each scored section of the IL and UL templates includes numbered points, which in nearly every case, must be addressed for that section. The exception to this is Section 3: Income, Infrastructure and Facilities in the UL template, for which units are not expected to address all of the numbered points. For this section of the statement, units are invited to choose between the numbered points as best fits their context and the case they can make for excellence. The sub-panels recognise that units vary substantially in their access to and control of resources and wish to support a diversity of narratives.

The numbered points within each section of the ILS and ULS are accompanied by bullets that offer suggestions for addressing that point, as indicated by the instruction ‘could include’. Institutions and units do not need to cover all of the bullets, and are unlikely to have sufficient words to do so. Institutions and units are invited to select the topics for which they can make the strongest case for excellence. Where the phrase ‘could include but is not limited to’ is used, the narrative need not address any of the bullets, as long as it addresses the numbered point. The exception to this is Section 1: Strategy in the ILS for which all bullets must be addressed, as this section is key to the institutional strategy that SPRE is assessing. The instruction to address these bullets is indicated within the template with ‘must’.

Approach to statement writing

Each section of the statements should include a narrative that covers the points outlined in paragraphs 5.0.2. to 5.0.5.

The institution’s/unit’s approach to equality, diversity and inclusion. Statements should demonstrate the institution’s/unit’s commitment to promoting equality through the active inclusion of a diverse range of staff and research student roles and voices, particularly for under-represented groups, in the development and implementation of the institution’s/unit’s strategy.

The institution’s/unit’s approach to research diversity. Statements should demonstrate the institution’s/unit’s commitment to supporting and recognising the widest possible range of outputs, research practices, engagement approaches and impacts (see paragraph 2.0.2., Section 1: Overview in the Guidance).

Critical and transparent reflection that demonstrates development over the REF period. Statements should contain a balanced reflection of the institution’s/unit’s research cultures within the context of internal and external change and challenge, and in the light of learning over time. They should show how institutional/unit resource allocation, strategic focus, and the maturity of the institution’s/unit’s research culture strategy support and/or maintain research excellence. The panels recognise the gap that may exist between institutional/unit ambitions and the reality of everyday practice. Mechanisms to identify and address gaps and unintended consequences are a characteristic of an effective research environment and assessors do not expect to see uniform improvement across sections.   

Evidence of the effectiveness of policies and practices designed to enable, sustain and enhance research excellence. Statements should tightly couple narrative with evidence, drawing on the suggested indicators or other relevant measures to explain what has improved or been effectively maintained, where progress has been limited and why, and how this evidence has informed decision-making, prioritisation, and subsequent action. Assessors will be interested in evidence from the whole lifecycle of activity, for example how institutions or units have:  

• identified and addressed priorities for enabling and sustaining research excellence across disciplinary and interdisciplinary breadth
• co-developed and delivered improved research environments across the institution 
• evaluated these policies and practices and reflected on how less positive outcomes have/will be addressed through clear action

Definition of responsible research, engagement and impact

Institutions and units are encouraged to discuss how they support responsible research, engagement and impact as part of their research environments.

To clarify the scope of this, responsible research, engagement and impact practices are approaches to conducting, supporting and sharing research that:

• consider potential consequences, opportunities, uncertainties and inequalities
• value diverse forms of knowledge, expertise and experience
• support integrity, dialogue, reciprocity and adaptation throughout the research, engagement and impact lifecycle

Evidence of responsible practice does not lie in the existence of procedures alone, but in the extent to which these principles influence decisions and contribute to reflective improvement.

The definition proposed here draws on multiple traditions, including responsible research and innovation and research integrity. No single framework is definitive; rather, this definition seeks to identify principles and practices that recur across these traditions and are applicable across disciplines and institutional contexts. 

Use of indicators

Panels will use quantitative data and standard analyses (see sub-section 12., Section 8: Assessment criteria – SPRE in the Panel criteria) in the context of the information provided in the ILS and ULS to inform their assessment of those statements. Data on research doctoral degrees and professional doctoral degrees awarded will be used to inform the panels’ assessment in relation to ‘research students’ in ‘Section 2: People’. Data on research income will be used to inform the panels’ assessment in relation to ‘Section 3: Income, infrastructure and facilities’. 

Data on both doctoral degrees awarded and research income will be considered in the context of the narrative provided, the size of the submitting unit, its areas of specialism, its research groups, research strategy and different levels of research funding available in different fields.  

Where institutions are provided with data on clinical academics employed by the HEI with honorary contracts in the NHS at the institutional level, HEIs may choose to contextualise these in the institution-level statement in ‘Section 0: Context, mission and structure’ and should discuss them in Section 2: People. Institutions are also welcome to discuss clinical academics not recorded in HESA, for example with primary contracts in the NHS or other healthcare providers. Submitting units should discuss all types of clinical academics that are relevant to their unit within their SoC. Where clinical academics have been highlighted in the context section, they should then be discussed as part of the wider research community throughout the statement. This guidance applies only to HEIs and units with clinical academics.

Suggested indicators have been provided to support the requested content for both the ILS and ULS. The indicators are illustrative and are not mandatory. This is indicated by the phrase ‘could include but are not limited to’. The indicators can be found in sub-section 7. and sub-section 9. both in Section 7: SPRE in the Guidance.

Institutions and units must include indicators of effectiveness or learning for each section of the statement, but these do not need to be the ones suggested in the Guidance. Any relevant evidence may be used to strengthen the claim for excellence or to illustrate reflective practice. Where institutions and units have quantitative data, they are encouraged to use it, in context, and to explain how it may be a proxy if it does not exactly correspond to the population being discussed in the statement. Qualitative data is also welcome for claims where quantitative data is not available, or of sufficient quality, or where qualitative data is better suited to supporting the claims. Triangulation of data to support robustness is recommended where possible. Institutions and units should feel able to present their decision-making process, referencing the data that informed it, however partial it may be.  

Panels are aware that some of the indicators suggested for the UL statement will be more relevant to some UoAs and submitting units than others. Submitting units should focus on those indicators that best apply to their context.

Institutions and units are welcome to refer to the PCE indicator report or PCE pilot report if they need further inspiration for indicators that can help illustrate their statements. However, the findings of the reports should not be viewed as mandatory inclusions in ILS and ULS.

In assessing the ILS and ULS, panels will take a holistic view of each section, considering both the narrative and any supporting evidence provided. Where appropriate, panels will consider data in the context of size and type of institution to enable judgements to be made on an equitable basis.  

Word count

The maximum total word limit across the four scored sections of each of the ILS and the ULS is 8,000 words. The panels agree that complexity does not necessarily correlate with size, so a fixed word count for all HEIs will lead to a fairer assessment.

Size and complexity of the institution or units will be captured in the unscored context sections for both IL and UL. The context sections for both templates are not part of the assessed word count and in each case are capped at 2,000 words total. Institutions/units should describe their organisational context within the context section. 

Submitting institutions are reminded that all word limits for the ILS and ULS are upper limits, not a target. Concise statements are welcomed by the panels.

IL/UL interaction

The ILS should narrate how institutions enable, sustain and enhance excellent research proportionate to their institutional context across their submitting units. HEIs may choose to discuss this in terms of main panel level breadth and coverage rather than referencing each individual UoA to which a submission is being made. They should focus on how strategy, systems and enabling infrastructure support the research environment. They should indicate how approaches to supporting and including people and roles enables excellent, diverse and responsible research, engagement and impact.

The ULS should focus on how the HEI’s institution-level research mission and strategy are engaged with and implemented in the submitting unit, including evidence of their effects. The ULS may also discuss the effectiveness of separate or complementary unit-level strategy, processes and support if relevant to the context of the submitting unit.

Sub-panels will have access to ILS to contextualise their assessment of the ULS and will therefore look for evidence of interplay between ILS and ULS where relevant to the context. Evidence could include coordinated activity to improve research environments and/or co-development of the statements. Well-coordinated statements will clearly demonstrate the two-way relationship; in other words where units may have influenced institutional strategy (this will not be relevant to every unit), and where institutional strategy has shaped activity and direction within units (while recognising disciplinary differences and submission sizes). This approach will also avoid unnecessary duplication between ILS and ULS. Strong ILS and ULS will demonstrate relevant complementarity between institution and units and combine reflective narrative with robust evidence.

Small institutions, including those comprising just one submitting unit, are not expected to write new institutional strategies to meet the criteria for a REF submission but should draw on their existing strategies as appropriate within ILS and ULS. Where there is overlap between IL and UL strategy and practice, institutions are advised to address all relevant matters where appropriate in both the ILS and ULS. Institutions and units should remember that the sub-panels will have the ILS for context, whereas the IL assessors will not have routine access to the ULS, but may request it if required.

While HEIs should not feel the need to duplicate across the ILS and ULS, the panels recognise that some duplication of material may be necessary and appropriate, particularly for smaller institutions and those submitting to a single UoA, as outlined in paragraph 6.2.3., Section 7: SPRE guidance in the Guidance. There is no penalty for duplication. Small institutions should be reassured that all word limits are limits, not targets.

To facilitate robust assessment of the relationship between the ILS and ULS, the IL SPRE Panel and the sub-panels will share with each other insights from their calibration exercises for ILS and ULS respectively. The IL SPRE Panel will be able to use panel-instigated audit queries to check the veracity of particular IL claims against a selection of ULS at the institution. The sub-panels will read the ILS for context in assessing the ULS, but will not receive or provide scores for ILS. Sub-panels will also be able to raise panel-instigated audit queries on ILS where necessary. There will also be a mechanism for dialogue between the IL SPRE Panel and sub-panels to share information from panel-instigated audit queries to ensure the robustness of the assessment process and to avoid duplication of effort in the verification of evidence.

SPRE IL Assessment  

Institution-level SPRE evaluates how effectively institutions enable, sustain and enhance research, engagement and impact excellence through their strategy, people, and research environment. SPRE ILS will be assessed by the IL SPRE Panel. The panel will comprise new members to be recruited in 2027 as well as the main panel SPRE experts who will be co-opted onto the IL SPRE Panel. The panel will also have observers from both PDAP and RDAP. The panel’s detailed working methods will be developed following full recruitment of the panel. These working methods will detail the processes the IL SPRE panel will follow in undertaking its assessment, but will not introduce new guidance or criteria.

ILS will contain a context section: Section 0: Context, mission and structure. The context section itself will not be scored. However, the IL SPRE Panel’s scoring of the ILS will be informed by this contextual section and the quantitative data and standard analysis.

The context section comprises: 

• institutional context and mission
• organisational structures relevant to research
• information on significant changes to the institution’s disciplinary portfolio within the REF period

Presentation of longitudinal data which informs the institution’s approach to SPRE and demonstrates effectiveness in terms of outcomes over time is encouraged within the four scored sections of the statement. Statements should explain the context and relevance of any data supplied.

Quantitative data should be presented in both numerical values and percentages, or grouped or omitted where numerical values are not large enough to ensure anonymity or robust interpretation. The absence of numerical values will not be detrimental where small numbers mean anonymity would be compromised. The IL SPRE Panel will be provided with the quantitative data and standard analyses to inform their assessment.

Where required as part of the assessment, IL assessors will have the ability to request access to relevant ULS to inform their assessment. Details of any approved small unit exceptions for the institution will also be available to the panel.

The panel has no pre-formed view of the ideal size or organisational structure that supports research environments, or of the ideal context or approach for enabling engagement and impact, and will judge each submission on its merits, contextualised appropriately to the nature of the institution.

ILS should show holistic coverage of institutional priorities impacting the experience of leading and conducting research. ILS should present a whole institution picture across all four sections, not isolated examples of excellence in particular disciplines. This does not require name checking every unit submitted, but institutions should address priorities within each main panel area submitted to. Statements should demonstrate how policies translate into measurable improvements in researcher experience with full coverage across units.

SPRE UL assessment 

Unit-level SPRE evaluates how effectively units enable, sustain and enhance research, engagement and impact excellence through their strategy, people, and research environment. ULS will be assessed by the sub-panels. 

There is no assumption that the unit refers to a single department or coherent organisational unit. The sub-panels believe that excellent research can be undertaken in a wide variety of research structures and environments, and outstanding impacts achieved from within a wide variety of research contexts and resulting from a wide diversity of approaches. The sub-panels consider that the health of the disciplines represented within the sub-panels is well served by this variety. The sub-panels have no pre-formed view of the ideal size or organisational structure for a research environment, or of the ideal context or approach for enabling impact, and will judge each submission on its merits, contextualised appropriately to the nature of the institution. Sub-panels will assess, on an equal basis, submissions that reflect the work of administrative units such as departments, and submissions that do not map neatly onto departmental or other administrative structures within HEIs.

Sub-panels will consider initiatives and developments in the context (including in the context of the size) of the unit.  Sub-panels will consider the development of the research environment in the context of the amount of funding available to units rather than score the amount of funding received directly.

Presentation of longitudinal data which informs the unit’s approach to SPRE and demonstrates effectiveness in terms of outcomes over time is encouraged, where available, within the four scored sections of the statement. Statements should explain the context and relevance of any data supplied.

Reported quantitative data should be presented in both numbers and percentages, or grouped or omitted where numbers are not large enough to ensure anonymity or robust interpretation. The absence of numbers will not be detrimental where small numbers mean anonymity would be compromised. The sub-panels will be provided with the quantitative data and standard analyses to inform their assessment.

ULS are expected to show how the submitting unit’s activities relate to, implement, complement and/or contribute to, institutional strategy. 

ULS are encouraged to show, where relevant, how the unit has contributed to policy and practice at institutional level, and/or beyond the institution. 

UL contextual information and standard indicators

ULS will contain a context section. The context itself will not be scored but it will provide evidence of the extent to which the research strategy and policies outlined within the ULS are reflected, and the sub-panels’ scoring of the ULS will be informed by contextual information provided in that section.

The context section comprises: 

• an overview of how the unit is structured
• the SoR
• the SoC

Context: Context and Structure 

Given that there is no expectation that the SPRE element of submissions relates to a single coherent organisational unit, submissions should explain any distinct groups or units covered, particularly where discrete organisational units form part of a single submission. Neither the existence of research groups, nor their absence, is, in itself, considered significant by the sub-panels.

There is no expectation that submitting units will be undertaking research aligning to all of the broad research areas available in the broad research area taxonomy for the UoA. The context and structure should comprise the description of the research remit of the unit, and associated structures, from the perspective of the institution.

Context: Statement of Representation (SoR)

The expectation is that submissions will include the highest quality research across all the research areas in which an HEI has been active over the REF period. The SoR provides an opportunity for submitting units to address the distribution of their submitted outputs and associated reserve list across:

• the recorded substantive links
• the relevant broad research areas (see Annex B: Unit of Assessment descriptors and taxonomies in the Panel criteria)

The SoR will, therefore, describe the diversity of the research undertaken in the submitting unit using the list of broad research areas for the UoA and how the submitted output distribution across substantive links aligns to this. The extent to which there is coherence between the breadth of outputs submitted for CKU and the evidence of support for breadth of research activity in the scored sections of the ULS will be used to inform the sub-panel’s assessment of the ULS. The SoR allows contextualisation of the submitted research outputs in terms of the submitting unit’s structure, strategy and circumstances to explain this coherence.

Sub-panels expect to see reflection on any areas of concentration or omission in comparison to how the unit is described in Section 0: Context and Structure. Submitting units are encouraged to contextualise this in terms of the unit’s past and future development. Full guidance on the content of the SoR, and its role within SPRE can be found within sub-section 7., Section 4: CKU guidance and sub-section 9.1., Section 7: SPRE guidance, both in the Guidance.

Research diversity: as stated in paragraph 5.6.7., Section 4: CKU guidance in the Guidance, an underpinning principle of the REF is that all forms of research output and research practice will be assessed on a fair and equal basis. Sub-panels will not regard any form of output as innately of greater or lesser quality than another, and all subject matter will be assessed equally, without bias.  Units are encouraged to consider the full diversity of output types and methodologies available within their unit, when selecting outputs for submission.

Exceeding the recommended maximum of five outputs per substantive link: the expectation is that there will generally be no more than five outputs attributed to a single substantive link within a submitted unit (including outputs in the reserve pool), to ensure that submissions cover the full range of research produced within the submitting unit. The sub-panels recognise that there are some occasions where the recommended maximum of five may be exceeded, and this must be discussed within the SoR. Submitting units should demonstrate to the panel that one or more of the following criteria apply where the unit exceeds the indicative maximum:

• variation in research capacity that has skewed the distribution of outputs within the output pool due to:
  • equality-related circumstances
  • significant staff changes over the period, for example, recent recruitment of staff
  • impact of unforeseen events that have had an uneven effect on research capacity, for example, fire, flood, cyber-attack, or geopolitical barriers
• output distribution is disproportionately skewed due to established publication practices within the discipline, for example, to enable submission of reserve outputs for double-weighted outputs, or where there are high proportions of double-weighted outputs

Where comments are made about equality-related circumstances, units should not report specific circumstances but comment only on how many broad research areas are affected and the extent to which they are impacted.

Sub-panels will review the information provided against the criteria and will use this to understand the context of the submitting unit. Where sub-panels do not judge the submitted rationale to meet one or more of these criteria, the over-reliance on a substantive link may be considered evidence of inequitable support for researchers in the unit. This may influence the sub-panels’ assessment of the ULS in regard to claims around support for diverse research.

Sub-panels may make requests for audit where they consider this necessary. Sub-panels will ensure consistency of approach through calibration ahead of and during the assessment.

Omission of research activities or areas: the expectation is that submissions include the highest quality research across all the areas in which a submitting unit is active. These research areas will be described in the context and structure section of the ULS. The sub-panels acknowledge that there are occasions where it is legitimate that a broad research area represented within the submitting unit is not also represented within the outputs submitted. Where this is the case, it must be discussed within the SoR. Submitting units should demonstrate to the panels that one of the following criteria apply where the unit has omitted a broad research area from its output submission:

• recent investment in new research roles, strategy, or infrastructure
• investment in new research areas yet to reach maturity. This may include circumstances where research groups have been recruited from another institution within the REF period
• disciplinary norms meaning that a research area has, for example, been in an engagement, impact or knowledge exchange phase of the research cycle, or where a research area has been in a period of extended data collection, synthesis and analysis phase in an extended research process
• distribution of career stages across the unit leading to certain research areas being concentrated in certain career stages
• significant disruption (for example, fire, flood, cyber attack, or geopolitical barriers)
• exceptionally, equality-related circumstances leading to significant reduction in research capacity across an entire research area

Acknowledgement of areas for future development or investment will be considered a strength where clear routes to enhancement are outlined in the ULS.

Where sub-panels do not judge the submitted rationale for omission of research activities to meet one or more of these criteria, the omission may be considered evidence of inequitable support for the omitted broad research area. This may influence the sub-panels’ assessment of the ULS in regard to claims around research diversity. Sub-panels may make a request for audit where they consider this necessary. Sub-panels will ensure consistency of approach through calibration ahead of and during the assessment.

Context: Statement on the Research Community (SoC)

For the purposes of SPRE in REF 2029, the submitted unit extends beyond those counted in the volume measure to reflect the wider research community underpinning the research environment (see sub-section 7.1., Section 4: CKU guidance and paragraph 8.1.5. and paragraph 8.1.6., Section 7: SPRE guidance, all in the Guidance). This includes all research staff, staff who enable or support research, engagement and impact, and research students.

The purpose of the SoC is to provide contextual understanding of the people, teams, and structures that support the vitality and sustainability of the unit’s research environment.

There is no expectation that the ULS will map onto a single department or organisational unit. Where the submitting unit draws from multiple organisational groupings, this should be clearly identified in the SoC.

The SoC should provide a narrative overview of the range of roles and career stages within the submitting unit and indicate the amount of career progression through the REF cycle. Where relevant, the SoC should also include researchers external to the HEI who work with the unit.

Submitting units with clinical academics should describe them as part of this statement. Both clinical academics with primary contracts in the HEI and those with primary contracts in the NHS or other healthcare providers should be described here as relevant to the submitting unit. Main Panel A welcome inclusion of numbers of current staff or longitudinal data if the unit has it. Support for these staff should be discussed as part of the ‘People’ section of the template.

The sub-panels have developed an indicative list of types and breadth of roles and career stages that should be discussed. Where we use the term researcher, this includes staff whose sole role is research, as well as those for whom research is part of their role, for example teaching and research academics, research technicians or clinical researchers. There is no expectation that all submitting units will have all of these roles and career stages. As these roles and career stages intersect, units should group them or discuss intersections as relevant:

• research officers, research technicians, experimental officers, digital and laboratory managers
• research managers and programme managers
• technician apprentices and other apprentices engaged in or supporting research
• post-doctoral researchers
• early career researchers (as defined by the unit)
• mid-career researchers, or established researchers (as defined by the unit)
• late-career researchers (as defined by the unit)
• staff without a research contract but who have received research time and funding
• clinical academics employed by the institution with honorary NHS contracts
• clinical staff employed by the NHS or other healthcare providers who work with the unit 
• veterinary clinical academics
• visiting, honorary and emeritus professors or equivalent
• practitioners, creative fellows, artists in residence and Professors in Practice 
• staff who are aligned to or based in the unit who support the development of research, engagement and impact including archivists, curators, librarians, language specialists, software engineers, impact and knowledge exchange managers
• external professional staff from partners who work within the unit to enable research, engagement and impact (for example, staff from companies, government agencies, arts organisations, and non-governmental organisations, social workers, teachers and community researchers)
• units may also wish to discuss how candidates for research or professional doctoral degrees contribute to the unit’s environment for research and impact where appropriate

Researchers who are employed by the HEI but who are based overseas may be included but only if their activity is clearly and directly connected to a UK-based department/unit.

Standard analyses of the SPRE quantitative data 

Provided data

The REF team will provide panels with the standard analyses as set out in sub-section 4., Section 7: SPRE guidance in the Guidance.

Income-in-kind will no longer be provided to institutions/units, but institutions/units may report this in their infrastructure section where relevant and this data may be audited.

Assessment principles

The panels will use this data strictly to inform their assessment of the SPRE narrative statements against the criteria of vitality and sustainability. The quantitative data itself will not be directly scored. Panels will take account of unit size and disciplinary norms. 

The data on doctoral degrees awarded will be used as an indicator for the section relating to research students in Section 2: People. The data on research income will be used as an indicator in relation to Section 3: Income, Infrastructure and Facilities.