Angst over research culture’s expanded role in REF is misplaced

I'm sure this is all well-intentioned but my experience of 'flatness of hierachy' is that it may be 'therapeutic' for some, but it produces mediocre scholarship and favours game playing I'm afraid. It's not therapy for those who aspire to leading research as a vocation not as a professional enterprise. I would dispute that good research is as much about culture as it is about research. A part of it is, yes, but good research is extremely difficult and unpredictable, often driven by a very few challenging individuals, and this article's suggestions or assumptions may be a hindrance. The neoliberal university has squeezed research to the bone and will find ways to respond to this research environment shift which will probably undermine research further. It plays right into the hands of those who who oppose expert knowledge, don't value research other than as a marketing opportunity for neoliberal and bureaucratic universities.

Well said OPR. If the intention is to encourage certain kinds of behaviour whilst pushing against others they need to provide more examples of both. Look not just at contemporary institutions but at historic examples. I suspect that the groups I would aspire to work with would fail to tick the boxes described in the original article. The ability to attract, retain a strong team, and let them succeed is the mark of a good culture See Aristotle's definition of happiness: "the exercise of vital powers along lines of excellence in a life afording them scope. Sadly too much of university life including the REF seems aimed at the opposite goal. The systematic harrassment of intellectuals.

Rating an institution for having a research culture is a different matter from rating the 'culture' of the research taking place in it. The decision in 2004 to allow an institution in England or Wales to gain 'university title' while offering only taught degrees has made it possible for alternative providers to multiply with few having any element of research in their work as institutions and few if any of their academic employees with personal research experience. What 'research culture' can their students encounter?

Given the choice between a hierarchy with a world-class researcher at the top or a flat hierarchy populated with intellectual equals which will produce better research? value-for-money? job satisfaction? how were - Bletchley Park or The Manhattan project or the Apollo programme, organised? [not Universities, however groups of researchers from diverse backgrounds who managed to work together]

I could not agree more OPR. Research (quality research and not the broad and watered down definitions so often used) requires individuals with high intellect, acute observational skills (particularly important in the sciences), dedication, passion and an environment in which they will thrive. We should stop trying to define and redefine research and its 'culture'; any true researcher will know what it is and what is needed.

All these REF changes are useless if the issue of pre-REF informal assessments conducted by universities are not tackled. The issues raised in this article and elsewhere can still occur. If REF is supposed to tackle these issues, then simply ban such pre-submission exercises and make department(s) who engage in such practices automatically ineligible for REF submission (e.g., whistleblowing).

Totally agree with the above comment