Stern might change the rules, but the REF game is still a game

Kirsty Rolfe says the portability proposal does nothing to ease the fears and worries of young researchers struggling to start careers

Published on
August 11, 2016
Last updated
August 11, 2016
James Minchall illustration (11 August 2016)
Source: James Minchall

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (1)

Yes, there's definitely a bit of "don't question our behaviour, trust us" to this: people who benefitted from a REF transfer window think, now that they are in charge of institutions, that it's a terrible idea and needs to be removed. The ones making the policy will never have to experience its consequences and are blithely certain that this will end gaming rather than creating new games tilted in favour of institutions offer ECRs. I do think that the REF window was absurd, but non-portability is not the answer. It's not like what I write now doesn't build on what came before; indeed, there are a couple of back burner articles that were mostly written three years ago at a different institution. I'd like to give them credit, but not at the expense of my current one. Without a mechanism for sharing outputs we will always have a system whereby institutions seek to maximise their claim over high-producing academics (transfer window or non-portability) and minimise their claim (via transfers to teaching contracts) their claim over those seen as 'weak'.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT