The REF games are even more brutal this time around

I appreciate the position and argument from the anonymous research active academic in last week’s issue (‘The Ref games are even more brutal this time around’) who may be forced by university managers onto a teaching only contract because of a lack of at least one 3* output. I recognise particularly the, to some extent unintended, consequences of the REF in concentrating research and narrowing its scope. However, at least three points seem pertinent from my perspective as a research active academic in a university of applied science (often referred to as ‘post 1992’) where the focus of academics is on knowledge exchange and teaching as much as on research. First, the impact of REF game playing is likely to be differentiated across the diversity of academics, so women, ethnic minority origin and working class academics beware! It was noticeable that the illustration accompanying the article last week showed one white female and seven white male academics being metaphorically cut down to teaching only. Second, for some academics, including many of my colleagues in professional fields who may not (yet) have a doctorate, a teaching only contract may be a welcome relief. Third, and in tension with the second point, no matter what your field, your contract, your institutional context, or the response of your university managers to the REF, as an academic there remains a sector wider pressure to be active in research or advanced scholarship, to publish or perish is simply part of the territory. In a UK survey based study of academics in Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions, we found that many were struggling to develop their research work and researcher identity. A significant proportion, even in research intensive universities, were subverting researcher identity – they were doing ‘just enough’ to keep managers happy then focusing on teaching, knowledge exchange or leadership. It does seem perverse for managers to deliberately move an academic towards more teaching without considering their effectiveness as a teacher, but on the other hand asking them to juggle multiple identities all at the highest level may not be realistic. REF and TEF game playing at institutional and individual level is just part of the marketization of education policy framework that has reinforced an elite education system, university managers need to understand this wider context and be proactive within it. At a graduation ceremony before Christmas I was dismayed to hear the vice chancellor of a research intensive university boast to the assembled parents and students that his was an ‘elite’ university. I would suggest that his world view rests on the myth of meritocracy and I only hope that his Christmas stocking included copies of Danny Dorling’s ‘Injustice: Why Social Inequality Still Persists’ or Diane Reay’s ‘Miseducation’.

"but in a hostile work environment the issue can be getting it recognised as one. It should be straightforward but ranking is a subjective process that is open to abuse". Absolutely valid point. Often times there is no clear oversight of this whole process and no proper feedback. In one instance the feedback for a 3* rated paper was "it dosent meet the criteria for 4*". It is like saying to a student, you have not got a disctinction because you have only got a merit! A lot of good that feedback is!

Excellent comment - I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment!