The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is set to decide the fate of university funding, reputation, and careers, leaving institutions in a state of limbo as they wait for the results. For nearly two years, academics have been grappling with staff inclusion deadlines and publication cut-offs, culminating in a year-long wait for the outcome – a period that will significantly impact their future prospects.
The framework's importance can be understood by considering its role: it determines how much government funding universities receive for research. This has created an intense drive to maximise REF scores, with institutions competing fiercely for high grades. The financial stakes are high, and the pressures exerted on academics have led to a significant shift in their workload.
According to David Willetts, former universities minister, professors now spend 60% of their time on research and just 40% on teaching – a reversal of roles that was once standard. This trend is largely attributed to the pressures exerted by the REF system, which has intensified over the years.
Critics argue that the competition for high REF scores has led to 'game-playing' among universities. This includes practices such as hiring researchers on short-term contracts or employing ghostwriters for impact assessments. Some institutions have also moved academic staff onto teaching-only contracts, effectively removing them from the research assessment pool.
The system is accused of distorting research priorities, prioritising the production of required outputs over innovative scholarship. The REF's focus on present successes rather than future breakthroughs has led to a perceived disincentive for pursuing unconventional or high-risk research – work that might not secure top scores but could lead to world-changing discoveries.