Transcript REF Briefing - June 2011 - RIBM - Manchester Metropolitan University

Research Excellence Framework
2014
Professor Valerie Edwards-Jones
Director of Research
Manchester Metropolitan University
Professor Gill Wright
Director of Research MMUBS and RIBM
Manchester Metropolitan University
The Research Assessment
Exercise 2008
• 440 researchers were submitted in 17 subject areas
• 78% of all research scored as internationally recognized with 12
UoAs having research considered to world leading
• £6,573,721 funding per annum in QR income in 2009
• 250% increase in the funding for MMU
• 47th (-55th) in England out of 129 who receive funding for
research, depending upon which analysis undertaken.
• Key indicator that MMU is considered research active!
2
MMU was considered 5th in the North
West for Research Excellence!
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
University of Manchester (4th)
University of Liverpool (18th)
Lancaster University (24th)
University of Salford (48th)
University of Plymouth (50th)(top post 1992 University)
MMU (55th) (2nd in ranking post 1992 University)
University of Bradford (61st)
Sheffield Hallam (66th)
Nottingham Trent (67th)
UCLAN (71st)
Liverpool John Moores (76th).
– Reference (Research Fortnight Power Ranking Analysis)
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
Governors Workshop
3
Research Strategy 2010-2015
• grow research quality and volume through a Research Institute
(RI) infrastructure supported by the Research, Enterprise and
Development (RED) Office and Faculties.
• increase income from peer reviewed sources.
• engage with partners and users to maximise social, cultural,
public policy, quality of life and economic impact of research
internationally and nationally.
• provide a strong and vibrant research environment for students
and increase post graduate research student numbers.
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
Governors Workshop
4
Research Institutes
•
•
•
•
Reduced from ten to eight RIs
All Directors appointed
Full allocation of QR funding to RIs
Overseen by management board and steering
committee
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
Governors Workshop
5
QR Income to the MMU
•
•
•
•
2008 £3.65m
2009 £6.7m
2010 £6.24 m*
2011 £ 5,6m*
– *Reduced following change in allocation algorithm
• All monies allocated to the research institutes on
a 3:3:1model.
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
Governors Workshop
6
REF 2014
• The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is
the new system for assessing the quality of
research in UK higher education institutions
(HEIs).
• The exercise will be managed by the REF team
based at HEFCE and overseen by the REF
Steering Group, consisting of representatives of
the four funding bodies.
The REF will:
• inform the selective allocation of research
funding to HEIs
• provide benchmarking information and establish
reputational yardsticks
• provide accountability for public investment in
research and demonstrate its benefits.
Key features
• The REF will be a process of expert review,
informed by indicators where appropriate.
• Expert sub-panels for each of 36 units of
assessment (UOAs) will carry out the
assessment, working under the guidance of four
broad main panels.
• Institutions will be invited to make submissions to
each UOA.
to be assessed in terms of:
• The quality of research outputs
– Assessed by international standards of
excellence. Some of the panels -citation
information to inform their review of outputs.
• The wider impact of research
– the features and weighting for this area of
assessment still under debate, following a pilot
exercise.
• The vitality of the research environment
REF 2014
• 36 UoA’s
• 4 main panels each with a number of related sub
panels
– Outputs
–
– Environment – Impact
-
65%
15%
20%
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/
11
Research Profile
• The profiles will show the proportion of submitted work
at each point on a five-point scale (1* to 4* plus
Unclassified).
• Full details on profile not available yet but expected to
be similar to last RAE.
• Funding only for 3* and 4* next year (2012)
HEFCE Definitions of Research Quality
4* demonstrates levels of originality, significance and rigour comparable to the
best work conducted in the UK or elsewhere. Has been, or will be, recognised as
making a significant or substantial contribution to knowledge, theory, policy or
practice. Become, or likely to become, a primary point of reference.
3* demonstrates international standards of excellence in its originality, significance
and rigour. Advanced, or is likely to advance, knowledge, theory policy or practice.
It has become, or is likely to become, a major point of reference.
2* demonstrates quality that is internationally recognised in its originality,
significance and rigour. Made, or will make, a contribution to knowledge, theory,
policy or practice.
1* demonstrates quality that is nationally recognised in its originality, significance
and rigour. It has made, or will make, a limited contribution to knowledge, theory,
policy or practice.
Unclassified falls below the standard of nationally recognised work, or fails to meet
the definition of research.
Time line
• http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/timetable/
• July 2011- publication of guidance,
• July 2011 - draft criteria for panels and working
criteria
• Autumn 2011- consultation on criteria
• Jan 2012 – publication of criteria
• Autumn 2012- pilot for submission criteria
• Spring 2013 – declaration of interest,
submissions
Timeline contd
• 31st July 2013- end of assessment period
– (for research impacts, the research environment
and data about research income and PGR
students)
• 31st October 2013 - Census date for staff eligible
for selection
• 29th November 2013 – submission date
• 31st December 2013 - End of publication period
– (cut-off point for publication of research outputs,
and for outputs underpinning impact case studies)
• December 2014 – publication of REF
What has happened at MMU
• Mock REF last year last year
– Determine staffing mix, outputs, income
• Currently compiling /evaluating impact case
• More targeted REF later this year with external
assessment
• Systems and process development
– Outputs, Pre-post award management, PGR
student progression
– Concordat
16
Research and Enterprise Income
• Dropping
– 20% last year
– Success rates with grants (research council)
• Restrictions by councils
– ResearchResearch
– Grant notifications
– Grant support – European funding
17
HEFCE 2010 Pilot Exercise
• 29 HEIs participating
• 5 subject areas: Clinical Medicine, Physics, Earth
Systems and Environmental Sciences, Social Work
and Social Policy, and English Language and
Literature
• Institutions submitting for English included: Brunel,
Cambridge, Cardiff, DeMontfort, Dundee, Exeter,
Kingston, Lancaster, Liverpool John Moores, St
Andrews, Manchester, Queen Mary and UCL
Impact Exercise
• The exercise was designed to test and develop a
reliable method for assessing research impact
• the findings will critically inform the final REF
guidelines and instructions
• Pilot impact statements and case studies were
submitted by 15 March 2010, and the relevant
reports were published online in November
The impact agenda: the basics
• Research to be assessed for its Quality and Utility
• Impact defined broadly to include social, economic,
cultural, environmental, health and quality-of-life benefits
(but exclude ‘purely academic’ impact)
• Impacts of any type and in any realm, as long as they are
realised outside the academic community
• extra points for demonstrating kinds of impact of which
HEFCE and the expert panels have so far failed to
conceive
To count in REF 2014
• an impact needs to have manifested at some point during,
or indeed throughout, the given time window (Jan 2008 –
Nov 2013)
• it must relate unambiguously and decisively to one or
other aspect of a university department’s, institute’s or
centre’s research.
• the research that has generated the impact must have
produced a formal research output at some point in the
period since 1993 (to be confirmed)
Reach and Significance
• the two central criteria for assessing impact
REACH: how widely felt it was
SIGNIFICANCE: how much difference it made to the
beneficiaries
• how to measure and quantify impact, both in terms of
the numbers benefiting and the quantum of benefit?
The Impact Statement
A ‘scene-setting’ inventory of all impacts generated by the research
group as a whole
Must explain the position of the case studies within the group’s
overall research activity
Unlikely to feature as a separate document in REF2014 but likely to
form an integral part of the Research Environment narrative
Designed to prevent the prioritisation of certain subgroups and their
portrayal as representative of the group as a whole
The Impact Profile
4-star
exceptional: ground-breaking or transformative impacts of major value or
significance with wide-ranging relevance
3-star
excellent: highly significant or innovative (but not quite ground-breaking)
impacts relevant to several situations
2-star
very good: substantial impacts of more than incremental significance or
incremental improvements that are wide-ranging
1-star
good: impacts in the form of incremental improvements or process
innovation of modest range
Unclassified
The impacts are of little or no significance or reach; or the underpinning
research was not of high quality; or research-based activity within the
submitted unit did not make a significant contribution to the impact
UoA C19 Business and Management
IMPACT WORKING GROUP
David Leece
Rosemary Lucas
Lynn Martin
Alberto Paucar-Caceres
Catherine Parker
Heinz Tuselmann
CASES: 1 per 10 researchers, plus 1, min =2.
UoA C19 Business and Management
REF Impact Case Study Form
Title of case study
Short summary of the case study (Maximum 150 words)
Underpinning research (Maximum 500 words)
Provide information about the research and the specific insights that underpin the impact or benefit
claimed in this case study.
References to the research
References to key research outputs and grants, evidence of the quality of the research (Max =10)
The contribution, impact or benefit (Maximum 750 words)
Describe the impact or benefit and how the research contributed to this
References to corroborate the contribution, impact or benefit (max = 10)
UoA C19 Business and Management
Chair Professor Michael Pidd
Members
Professor John Arnold
Professor Jan Bebbington
Professor David Blackaby
Professor Robert Blackburn
Professor Jane Broadbent
Professor Chris Brooks
Professor Colin Eden
Professor Paul Edwards
Professor Guy Fitzgerald
Professor Keith Glaister
Professor Mark Jenkins
Professor Martin Laffin
Mr Alan Marsden
Professor Kathrin Moeslein
Professor Peter Naude
Professor Andy Neely
Ms Caroline Oades
Professor Richard Thorpe
Professor Ian Tonks
Professor Caroline Tynan
Professor Terry Williams
Professor Hugh Willmott
Panel Secretary Mrs Emma Calverley
Lancaster University
Loughborough University
University of St Andrews
Swansea University
Kingston University
Roehampton University
University of Reading
University of Strathclyde
University of Warwick
Brunel University
University of Sheffield
Cranfield University
Durham University
Formerly Arup
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg
University of Manchester
University of Cambridge
Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
University of Leeds
University of Bath
University of Nottingham
University of Southampton
Cardiff University
University of Hull
UoA C19 Business and Management
REF Information Capture
Researchers: MMU HR
Outputs: Digital Measures/Symplectic
Money: HESA
Doctoral: Faculty/RED
Environment: Narrative?
Impact: Working Group Cases
UoA C19 Business and Management
QUESTIONS?
http://www.ribm.mmu.ac.uk/
http://www.ribm.mmu.ac.uk/REF/index.php