Kelly Vere,
Deputy Co-Chair
REF 2029 People and Diversity Advisory Panel
REF 2029 will consider the collective endeavour of the institution and the many communities – academic, professional services and technical alike – who make research possible, and ensure research excellence.
One of the most exciting developments in the evolution of REF 2029 is the clear intention to recognise the contributions of everyone who enables or leads research. Initiatives like the Technician Commitment and the Hidden REF have worked hard to raise the visibility of research-enabling staff in universities, so it’s fantastic to see this reflected in how we plan to assess research excellence in future.
The recent publication of the Contributions to Knowledge and Understanding (CKU) guidance was a welcome step forward. It clearly states that outputs authored or created by research-enabling staff are eligible for submission. This is part of a deeper shift in REF 2029 of moving the REF further away from a focus on assessing individuals and as close as it can get to its true purpose of assessing how well organisations are supporting research excellence.
As part of this, for the first time, the REF 2029 Volume Measure uses routinely collected HESA data on the number of academic staff, to determine how many research outputs are to be submitted for each unit of assessment.
Importantly, as part of a strategic priority of driving the inclusion of a broader range of roles, career stages and people involved in research, those outputs don’t need to be authored by academic staff. They can be led by any author, or equivalent, who has made a significant research contribution to the output – whether that’s an academic, technician, research manager or research software engineer…indeed any role that enables or leads research.
The key requirement is that the institution must be able to demonstrate a substantial link to the output being submitted. This is evidenced by the contributor holding at least a 0.2 FTE contract with the institution and having “research activities” as part of their role – which usually means the word “research” appears in their role descriptor in some form.
That said, there has been some confusion around whether “research activities” includes the work of research-enabling staff such as technicians, research managers, engagement and impact professionals for example. However, the phrase is intended to encompass not just research but as broad a set of professionals engaged in “research activities” as possible – undertaking research, enabling research, supporting impact, managing research cultures, and so on – but there should be some form of explicit expectation that the author, or equivalent, is part of the research functions of the higher education institution (HEI). A measure that aims to protect individuals from pressures to conduct research in their own time, without support from their institution.
As a Deputy Chair of the REF 2029 People and Diversity Panel, I’ve been part of the feedback to the REF team on this point, who have updated the definition of “research activities” to ensure it includes both research academics and a broad range of research-enabling roles. The update can be found in the Contributions to Knowledge and Understanding (CKU) guidance.
For REF 2029, a sole-authored output by someone who has no explicit expectation of undertaking, enabling or supporting the research function of the HEI is not eligible for submission – regardless of job title. However, if a group of technical staff co-author a methods paper, or a research software engineer develops a piece of code, those outputs are eligible – it is not necessary for a traditional academic colleague to have been involved. This is not about job titles or grades: it’s about the collective endeavour of the institution and the many communities – academic, professional services and technical alike – who make research possible and ensure research excellence.