The REF is ruining UK research

The problem with the REF is that it has become institutionalized (and we know that once established bureaucracy perpetuates its existence). I was deeply involved in the equivalent exercise in Australia at the very beginning and what we found (in a subsequent after action style report) was that the exercise did three things. One was that it truncated the tail of poor performance (people were either removed or moved onto teaching contracts). Two, it focused those people who had the capabilities to concentrate on quality over quantity. Most high quality publications that were produced were produced by people who had done so in the past, they just did more in the future (and brought along a few others for the ride -- there was an expansion of co-authorship). Three, it concentrated hiring on specific research output capabilities. Hence, hiring became more focused with less emphasis on 'replacement' and more on 'improvement'. What we found was that once that 'shock' effect was achieved, subsequent rounds did not really improve things (the increase in research 'quality' was mainly due to a lowering of the criteria) hence the exercise that had quite strong marginal benefits relative to its cost, soon had more marginal cost than marginal benefit.

Yes, the REF did pass its used by date a long time ago and is now obsolete. The UK being the UK, though, they will continue riding the dead horse that is the REF, I am afraid. They will continue telling each other how great and "world-leading" they all are. By they I am referring to the universities' and research councils' bureaucrats, the sponsors of the REF in Whitehall and Westminster, but also the many academics obsessing about their status. The social pathology that is destroying academia is not limited to the REF but also includes journal impact factors, university rankings and other substantially meaningless metrics that simply reinforce the status quo of established, largely reputational hierarchies and theoretical and methodological hegemonies within disciplines. The symbolics of excellence or merit have long become much more important than actual substantial achievements in UK academia (and politics) but also beyond.

I take the point about the bureaucracy that has grown up around REF, which have become ends in themselves. I do worry however, that in the current climate the likely outcome of any change would not be a better REF or no REF, but rather no QR money at all and the effective withdrawal of public funding for research except for through competitive grants or whatever strategic areas a government of the day wishes to promote.

Entirely agree with this point. I would have more confidence if I had faith in HE sector leaders, including university leaders, UUK, funding agencies etc in standing up for the intrinsic value of HE research other than in instrumental terms which justify it on grounds of economic contribution or benefit in solving global challenges etc. I'm grateful for the British Academy for championing the humanities and social sciences in my field, and would like to see more HE opinion formers/ leaders make a positive case for our research on its own terms rather than always framed by latest funding / political imperatives.