Transcript Slide 1

Research & Modern
Universities
David Sweeney
Director (Research, Innovation & Skills)
Modern Universities Research Conference
27th March 2012
Focus on the bigger picture
• Supporting economic recovery and growth
• Building education and research partnerships in the faster growing
economies
• Focusing research efforts
• Maintaining our international reach
• Preparing graduates with a ‘global’ outlook
• Maintaining a rich diversity of higher education institutions
Assessing research quality
To identify and reward the contribution that high quality research has
made to the economy and society:
• Making these explicit to the Government and wider society
• Creating a level playing field between applied and theoretical
work but recognising only impact based on excellent research
• Encouraging institutions to achieve the full potential
contribution of their research in future
National policy
• A strong and innovative national
research base is essential to support
national prosperity in a globalised
knowledge based economy
• Need to strengthen links between
undertaking research and developing
new products and services
• Our strategic aim is to develop and
sustain a dynamic and internationally
competitive research sector that
makes a major contribution to
economic prosperity, national
wellbeing and the expansion and
dissemination of knowledge.
Big ideas for the future
“UK Research that will
have a profound effect on
our future.”
University – business links
• In 2003 the CBI noted less than 20% of businesses had links with
HEIs. In the CBI Education and Skills Survey 2010, 66% of
businesses now have links with HEIs.
• Significant contribution to academic culture change towards
knowledge exchange: number of academics with positive attitudes
to KE has grown from 61% in 2001 to 76% in 2008.
• Benefits to research and teaching: 48% of academics judged that
KE gave them new research insights; 38% of academics judged
that KE had helped them improve their presentation style.
A successful UK research base
• 11 UK universities in the World Universities Ranking Top
100 (second only to US)
• UK attracts 15% of all international doctoral students (second only
to US)
• 3rd in G8 (behind US and Germany) for production of
PhD qualifiers
• UK produces more publications and citations per pound spent on
research than other G8 nations
• With 1% world population we produce 6.9% of world publications,
receive 10.9% of citations and 13.8% of citations with highest
impact.
Investing QR for success
• Universities are funded to build and sustain baseline capacity of
high quality
• Undertaking research often chosen by the priorities of the
researcher – ground-breaking and innovative ‘blue-skies’ research
• Stable base on which to undertake research commissioned by
other funders
• Allows exploration of new areas of research, looking at
connections between disciplines, support of early-career staff,
doctoral students, support of staff between grants and research
facilities
• Expenditure at discretion of the university.
Economic Growth
• The hopes and fears of Governments around the world revolve
presently around issues of economic growth.
• Economic growth is not about helping businesses. It is about
working with businesses to replenish our jobs lost in the credit
crunch and subsequent recession, and to restore living standards.
• The consequences of such economic failures as we have seen
over last years can be profound – affecting not only economies,
but societies, communities, cultures and political stability. These
are very serious matters of deep and pressing concern.
Whose Problem?
• The responsibility of restoring economic growth does not fall
solely, or even perhaps primarily, to universities. But universities
can and are making a contribution.
• The issues are so serious that all who can do something should –
and should do more. This applies particularly to universities that
are part of the public fabric to the nation.
• It is anticipated that the jobs of the future will not grow back
where they have been lost. University research and knowledge
exchange can help identify technologies and other innovations
that may grow new industries. The graduates and skills
developed in higher education can put these new industries to
work.
What Solution (1)
• Universities can build on nearly two decades of progress in
working with business, but we believe that they will need to do
new things in these urgent circumstances:
• Growing demand for their knowledge exchange, to spur
greater innovation and hence growth
• Focussing on the vital R&D intensive companies that we have
in the UK – retaining them and helping them diversify and
grow
• Attracting companies from abroad to set up in the UK for our
ideas and talent; and even working with others to help
capture more jobs from these companies’ value chains (such
as through knowledge exchange through supply chains,
leadership and management and skills development)
What Solution (2)
• Universities are funded to build and sustain baseline capacity of
high quality
• Devising and spinning-off new technologies, to create new
industries and businesses
• Helping exporters through university global links and capabilities
• Working smarter with SMEs. Many are high-tech, but others may
have a range of appetites to grow; so universities should be
focussing on SMEs where they can find high-growth potential
• Developing the next generation of innovators and entrepreneurs
• Collaborating, with each other and with business, to create
clusters
• Being good partners in open innovation of all forms
The Challenge
• And above all, using public funding smartly: this includes
prioritising and targeting where the greatest impact can be made,
including unlocking private sector leverage.
Benefits of research
Clinical medicine
• Impacts on patient outcomes, health policy and practice, medical technology and the
pharmaceutical industry
Physics
• Impacts on high-tech products and services, public engagement with science and
defence and energy policy
Earth systems & environmental sciences
• Impacts on environmental policy, conservation, managing the environmental, utilities,
risks and hazards, exploration of resources, public health
Social work & social policy
• Impacts on social policy, public services, third sector, practitioners and public debate
English language & literature
• Impacts on creative industries, cultural enrichment, civil society, English as a global
product, policy development
Societal contribution (1)
• Economic & commercial – creating wealth, for public good and
private gain
• Public policy and services – stimulating public sector innovation
as a contribution to growth and quality of life
• Society, culture and creativity – enriching and expanding lives,
imaginations and sensibilities while challenging cultural values
and social assumptions
• Health and welfare – saving lives and enhancing the quality of life.
Societal contribution (2)
• Production – increasing production, yields or quality;
reducing waste
• Practitioners and services – changes to professional standards,
guidelines or training; influence on workforce planning
• Environment – influencing the policy debate on climate change
or other environmental policy issues
• International development – influencing international policy
development or international agencies or institutions; quality
of life improved in a developing country
• Education – influencing the form or the content of the
education of any age group in any part of the world.
Impact: Initial Consultations
• Widespread acceptance of the principle of incorporating impact
in the REF, and agreement that the impact assessment should:
• Be based on expert review
• Review historical impacts, not predict future impact
• Focus on the impact of submitted units’ research, not
individual researchers
• Be underpinned by high quality research
• Take a wide view of impact, inclusive of all disciplines.
Impact: Criteria
The criteria for assessing impacts are reach and significance*
Four star
Outstanding impacts in terms of their reach and significance
Three star
Very considerable impacts in terms of their reach and
significance
Two star
Considerable impacts in terms of their reach and significance
One star
Recognised but modest impacts in terms of their reach and
significance
The impact is of little or no reach and significance; or the impact
Unclassified was not eligible; or the impact was not underpinned by excellent
research produced by the submitted unit
* Each main panel provides a descriptive account of the criteria
Impact: Definition for the REF
• An effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture,
public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of
life, beyond academia
• Impact includes an effect, change or benefit to:
• The activity, attitude, awareness, behaviour, capacity,
opportunity, performance, policy, practice, process or
understanding
• Of an audience, beneficiary, community, constituency,
organisation or individuals
• In any geographic location whether locally, regionally,
nationally or internationally
• It excludes impacts on research or the advancement of academic
knowledge within HE; and impacts on teaching or other activities
within the submitting HEI
Impact: Submissions
Impact template (REF3a)
Case studies (REF3b)
• Sets out the submitted unit’s
general approach to enabling
impact from its research
• Specific examples of impacts
that were underpinned by the
submitted unit’s research
• One template per
submission – with a page
limit depending on the
number of staff submitted
• The number of case studies
required depends on the
number of staff submitted
• Covers the period 1 Jan
2008 to 31 Jul 2013
• Impacts during 1 Jan 2008 to
31 Jul 2013; underpinned by
research since 1 Jan 1993
• Contributes 20% to the
impact sub-profile
• Contributes 80% to the
impact sub-profile
Impact: Template (REF3a)
• The unit’s approach to enabling impact from its research:
• Context for the approach
• The unit’s approach during 2008-2013
• Strategy and plans for supporting impact
• Relationship to the submitted case studies
• Provides additional information and context for the case studies,
and can take account of particular circumstances that may have
constrained a unit’s selection of case studies
• To be assessed in terms of the extent to which the unit’s approach
is conducive to achieving impact of ‘reach and significance’
Impact: Case studies (REF3b)
• In each case study, the impact described must:
• Meet the REF definition of impact
• Have occurred between 1 Jan 2008 and 31 July 2013 (can be
at any stage of maturity)
• Be underpinned by excellent research (at least 2* quality)
produced by the submitting unit between 1 Jan 1993 to 31
Dec 2013
• Submitted case studies need not be representative of activity
across the unit: pick the strongest examples
Impact: Case studies (REF3b)
• Each case study is limited to 4 pages and must:
• Describe the underpinning research produced by the
submitting unit
• Reference one or more key outputs and provide evidence of
the quality of the research
• Explain how the research made a ‘material and distinct’
contribution to the impact (there are many ways in which this
may have taken place)
• Explain and provide appropriate evidence of the nature and
extent of the impact: Who / what was affected? How were
they affected? When?
• Provide independent sources that could be used to verify
claims about the impact (on a sample audit basis)
The Research Excellence
Framework
Assessment framework,
guidance on submissions
and panel criteria
Presentation outline
•
Introduction
•
Equality and diversity
•
Outputs
•
Impact
•
Environment
•
REF panels
Introduction:
Purpose of the REF
The REF replaces the RAE as the UK-wide framework for
assessing research in all disciplines. Its purpose is:
•
•
•
To inform research funding allocations by the four UK
HE funding bodies (approximately £2 billion per year)
Provide accountability for public funding of research
and demonstrate its benefits
To provide benchmarks and reputational yardsticks
Introduction:
The assessment framework
Overall quality
Outputs
Impact
Environment
Maximum of 4 outputs
per researcher
Impact template and
case studies
Environment data and
template
65%
20%
15%
Introduction:
Guidance and criteria
Comprehensive information and guidance is set out in:
•
Assessment framework and guidance on
submissions (July 2011):
-
•
Sets out the information required in submissions and
the definitions used
Panel criteria and working methods (Jan 2012):
-
Sets out how panels will assess submissions
Refined following consultation and panel meetings
during 2011
Equality and diversity:
Staff selection
•
•
HEIs are responsible for selecting staff whose work is to
be included in their REF submissions
Each HEI is required to develop, document and apply a
code of practice on fair and transparent staff selection:
-
Must be signed off by the head of the institution and
submitted to the REF team by 31 July 2012 at the latest
-
The REF Equality and Diversity Advisory Panel will
examine these for adherence to the guidance
-
They will be published at the end of the assessment
process
Equality and diversity:
Codes of practice
•
Codes should demonstrate fairness to staff by
addressing the principles of:
-
Transparency: clearly setting out the procedures for staff
selection, and communicating these to all eligible staff
-
Consistency: applying consistent procedures across the
institution
-
Accountability: clearly defining responsibilities for
decisions, with appropriate training for those involved
-
Inclusivity: promoting an inclusive environment, with
robust procedures for staff to disclose individual
circumstances
Equality and diversity:
Individual staff circumstances
•
•
•
Up to four outputs must be listed against each member of
staff
This can be reduced without penalty where an individual’s
circumstances have constrained their ability to work
productively or produce four outputs during the REF
period:
-
A wide range of circumstances will be taken into account
-
To be treated consistently across the exercise
With as much clarity as possible about the permitted
reductions
The allowances for maternity, paternity and adoption
leave have been revised following consultation
Equality and diversity:
Individual staff circumstances
Clearly defined circumstances
Complex circumstances
• Early Career Researchers
• Disability
• Part-time working, career breaks
and secondments outside of HE
• Ill health or injury
• Periods of maternity, adoption
and additional paternity leave
• Additional constraints related to
bringing a child into the family
• Mental health conditions
• Other caring responsibilities
• Gender reassignment
• Other circumstances related to
the protected characteristics or
employment legislation
Equality and diversity:
Equality and Diversity Advisory Panel
•
•
•
EDAP has been convened to assist the funding bodies
and REF panels in implementing equality and diversity
measures in the REF
EDAP will examine institutions’ codes of practice
EDAP will advise on all cases of complex individual
circumstances and recommend the appropriate
reductions to the Main Panel Chairs:
-
Sub-panels will be informed of the decisions and will not
have access to further information about complex
circumstances
-
ECU has published worked examples, including EDAP’s
rationale
Outputs:
Research outputs
•
•
•
•
•
Panels assess the quality of outputs – not individuals
Outputs may include but are not limited to: printed or
electronic publications, materials, devices, images,
artefacts, products, buildings, confidential or technical
reports, patents, performances, exhibits or events
All forms of outputs shall be assessed on a fair and
equal basis
Panels will take account of additional information
and/or citation data as stated in the ‘panel criteria’
They will not use journal rankings or impact factors
Outputs:
Co-authorship
•
•
•
•
A co-authored output may be listed against one or more
individuals that made a substantial contribution to it
It may be listed against any or all such co-authors
returned in different submissions; and a maximum of
two such co-authors within the same submission
In very specific situations the panels require information
to establish that the author made a substantial
contribution
Once this is established, panels will assess the quality
of the output, not the individual author’s contribution
Outputs:
Double-weighting
•
•
•
•
Institutions may request ‘double-weighting’ of outputs of
extended scale and scope
Sub-panels will consider the request for doubleweighting separately from assessing the quality of the
output
If a sub-panel accepts a request, the output will count
as two outputs in the calculation of the outputs subprofile
Institutions may submit a ‘reserve’ that will be assessed
only if the double-weighting request is rejected
Outputs:
Citation data
•
The following sub-panels will make use of citation data:
-
•
•
•
Main Panel A: Sub-panels 1-6
Main Panel B: Sub-panels 7-11
Main Panel C: Sub-panel 18
Citation data will be used as a minor component to
inform peer-review
HEIs will be provided access to the data via the REF
submission system
The funding bodies do not sanction or recommend that
HEIs rely on citation data to inform the selection of staff
or outputs for their REF submissions
Impact:
Definition of impact
•
•
•
Impact is defined broadly for the REF: an effect on,
change or benefit to the economy, society, culture,
public policy or services, health, the environment or
quality of life
Panels recognise that impacts can be manifest in a
wide variety of ways, may take many forms and occur
in a wide range of spheres
Each Main Panel provides examples, which are
intended to be helpful to institutions. They are not
exhaustive or restrictive lists.
Impact:
Impact submissions
Impact template (REF3a)
Case studies (REF3b)
• Sets out the submitted unit’s
general approach to enabling
impact from its research
• Specific examples of impacts
already achieved, that were
underpinned by the
submitted unit’s research
• One template per
submission – with a page
limit depending on the
number of staff submitted
• Covers the period 1 Jan
2008 to 31 Jul 2013
• Contributes 20% to the
impact sub-profile
• The number of case studies
required depends on the
number of staff submitted (1
plus 1 per 10 FTE)
• Impacts during 1 Jan 2008 to
31 Jul 2013; underpinned by
research since 1 Jan 1993
• Contributes 80% to the
impact sub-profile
Impact:
Case studies
•
Each case study should:
-
Clearly describe the underpinning research, who
undertook it and when
-
Provide a coherent narrative, clearly explaining the
relationship between the research and the claimed
impact
-
Clearly identify the beneficiaries and define the impact
-
Provide independent sources of corroboration
Provide evidence/indicators relevant to the case being
made. Evidence can be qualitative and/or quantitative.
All the material required to make a judgement should be
included
Impact:
Underpinning research
•
•
Case studies must be underpinned by research
produced by the submitted unit that has made a
material and distinct contribution to the impact
The underpinning research must meet the quality
threshold of at least two star
Impact:
Assessment criteria
The criteria for assessing impacts are reach and significance*
Four star
Outstanding impacts in terms of their reach and significance
Three star
Very considerable impacts in terms of their reach and
significance
Two star
Considerable impacts in terms of their reach and significance
One star
Recognised but modest impacts in terms of their reach and
significance
The impact is of little or no reach and significance; or the impact
Unclassified was not eligible; or the impact was not underpinned by excellent
research produced by the submitted unit
* Each main panel provides a description of the criteria
Environment:
Research environment
•
•
•
Each submission to include a completed template:
-
Overview
-
Income, infrastructure, and facilities
Research strategy
People (including staffing strategy and staff development;
and research students)
Collaboration and contribution to the discipline
The ‘panel criteria’ request specific types of evidence
under each heading
Data requirements have been streamlined and
standardised as far as possible
REF panels:
Main and sub-panel roles
There are 36 sub-panels working under the guidance of 4
main panels. Membership is published at www.ref.ac.uk
Sub-panel responsibilities
Main panel responsibilities
• Contributing to the main
panel criteria and working
methods
• Developing the panel
criteria and working
methods
• Assessing submissions
and recommending the
outcomes
• Ensuring adherence to the
criteria/procedures and
consistent application of the
overall assessment
standards
• Signing off the outcomes
REF panels:
Sub-panel working methods
•
•
•
•
•
Sub-panels will review their expertise at key stages in
the exercise
Work will be allocated to members/assessors with
appropriate expertise
Each sub-panel will run a calibration exercises for
outputs and impacts, guided by the main panels
All outputs will be examined in sufficient detail to
contribute to the formation of the outputs sub-profiles
Each case study will normally be assessed by at least
one academic member and one user member or
assessor
REF panels:
Additional assessors
Additional assessors will be appointed to extend the
breadth and depth of panels’ expertise:
•
•
Both ‘academic’ assessors (to assess outputs) and
‘user’ assessors (to assess impacts) will be appointed
Assessors will play a full and equal role to panel
members, in developing either the outputs or impact
sub-profiles. They will be fully briefed, take part in
calibration exercises and attend the relevant meetings:
-
Some appointments in 2012
Further appointments in 2013, in the light of the survey of
institutions’ submission intentions
REF panels:
UOA boundaries and
interdisciplinary research
•
•
UOA boundaries are not rigidly defined. Panels expect
submissions to include work that is interdisciplinary,
multidisciplinary or spans boundaries with other UOAs
Panels are committed to assessing all such work on
an equal basis:
-
Sub-panels include members with interdisciplinary
expertise; assessors will be appointed to extend their
breadth and depth of expertise
-
The sub-panels prefer to assess all work submitted
within their UOAs but may, exceptionally, cross-refer
parts of submissions to other sub-panels for advice.
(The original sub-panel remains responsible for
recommending the outcomes.)
Further information
www.ref.ac.uk
(includes all relevant documents)
Enquiries from staff at HEIs should be directed to
their nominated institutional contact
(see www.ref.ac.uk for a list)
Other enquiries to [email protected]
The REF Framework
Overall excellence profile
Outputs
(65%)
Maximum of 4
outputs per
researcher
Impact
(20%)
Impact Template
& Case studies
Environment
(15%)
Narrative
template +
income and
student data
The impact pilot exercise
• Tested and developed a case study approach to assessing the
impact of research
• 5 units of assessment (UOAs)
• 29 UK higher education institutions each submitting to 2 UOAs
• Each submission included:
• An ‘impact statement’ for the submitted unit as a whole
• Case studies illustrating examples of impacts achieved (a total
of one case study per 10 research staff)
• Impacts that occurred during 2005-09, underpinned by research
since 1993
The pilot panels
• Membership drawn from academia and research users from the
private, public and third sectors
• The panels tested the methodology by:
• Assessing the case studies in terms of ‘reach and significance’
of the impacts
• Considering the wider ‘impact statements’
• Producing impact profiles
• Reflecting on the process, identifying issues and making
recommendations on how to improve the process
Pilot reports
• Publications on www.ref.ac.uk:
• The findings of the 5 pilot panels
• Feedback from the 29 pilot HEIs (by Technopolis)
• Examples of good practice case studies
• A summary of workshops to explore impact in the arts,
humanities and social sciences
• Guidance documents used in the pilot exercise
Key findings
 The process makes explicit the benefits that research in each
discipline brings to society
 It is possible to assess the impact of research, through expert
review of case studies
 A number of refinements are needed for full implementation
 A generic approach is workable, with scope for REF panels to tailor
the criteria as appropriate to their disciplines
 The weighting should be significant to be taken seriously by all
stakeholders, and needs careful consideration
Key achievements of HEIF
• Increased links with businesses: in 2003, Richard Lambert noted
less than 20% of businesses had links with HEIs. In the CBI
Education and Skills Survey 2010, 66% of businesses now have
links with HEIs.
• Increased KE income into HE (proxy for economic and social
impact). Total income from interactions between UK HEIs and
business and community has increased by 35% from £2.28Bn in
2003-04 to £3.09Bn in 2010-11 in real terms. Interactions
included take up of HE knowledge, expertise, skills and equipment
(IP+).
• Strong return on public investment / leverage: for every £1 of
HEIF, between £4.9 and £7.1 of KE income into HE has been
generated.
Key achievements of HEIF
• Significant contribution to academic culture change towards KE:
number of academics with positive attitudes to KE has grown
from 61% in 2001 to 76% in 2008.
• Delivered benefits to research and teaching: 48% of academics
judged that KE gave them new research insights; 38% of
academics judged that KE had helped them improve their
presentation style.
• International comparisons: US, OECD and EU all now referencing
UK approach to KE.
Higher Education Innovation
Funding 2011 - 15
• HEFCE response:
• From building capacity to focus on rewarding performances –
100%
• Increase maximum award by 50% to £2.85m p/a
• Consulted on a new policy of applying a cut off to allocations
at £250k
• HEIF supports a broad range of KE activities that result in
economic and social impact
• Knowledge and technology transfer
• Double weight income from SMEs
• Support for enterprise education
• Staff and social enterprise and entrepreneurship
HE Innovation Funding 2011 - 15
• What we count:
• Income from (*including 2 x weighting of SMEs)
•
•
•
•
•
Contract research*
Consultancy*
Equipment and facilities*
IP licensing* (excluding sales of spin off companies)
Regeneration and development funding (UK funds, ERDF,
ESF, etc)
• Non credit baring course income (proxy for CPD)
• Knowledge transfer partnerships (KTPs)
• The formula
• £150m p/a, max £2.85m, threshold £250k, +/-50% of previous
award
• Released against high level HEI strategy
Scope of policy
BUSINESS
PRIVATE
SECTOR
PUBLIC
SECTOR
Competitiveness, Efficiency,
Growth
Cohesion
COMMUNITY
CULTURAL
LANDSCAPE
Cultural
Enrichment &
Quality of Life
SOCIAL & CIVIC
ARENA
Resources &
Opportunities