Tonight at
midnight the results of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) will be
released. In the lead up to REF, there have been a number of articles dealing
with the REF: whether it is fit for purpose, linking
it peripherally to a culture of bullying in UKHE, and suggestions
of whether its methods are sound.
The reality
is worse than that and as a starting point it is worth looking at this
earlier post. Nothing has appeared to change a mind since that was written.
Today there are three points:
The REF is a poor way to fund
science.
The REF and science funding can
yield tragic results.
The REF is the result of bad
leadership in universities.
One at a
time.
1) The REF
gives money to organisations. Its use comes with limited restrictions. This has
good and bad points. For example, I was
part of a REF unit that had some success in 2008. The money that followed that
result came into the university and it was under no obligation to deliver that
to me or any of the other members of the unit of assessment. This is good
because it allows the money to be used strategically by the organisation. It is
bad because it is really unlinked to the people or grouping that “earned” it.
To use a previous analogy, if Roofing companies were funded by the public purse
the way Universities are by the REF, a company with some excellence would have
cash pumped into it and they do not have to make roofs with it. They could, for
instance, use it to pay for people to write the next round of paperwork submitted
to the REF. A taxpayer might look at that process cynically and ask, “roofs or
paperwork?” I pay taxes, I know what I think.
Rather,
great research comes from great ideas and investment should follow those great ideas
not the past history of a research organisation.
2) REF and
the science funding regime in the UK can yield tragic results. I recently
learned of the tragic case of Stefan Grimm. There are articles related to his
suicide here
and here
and here.
His case resonated because he is not so different from me. He was my age. Like
me, he was a product of the Max Planck system. His
research record is somewhat better than mine
in terms of total citations but a similar h-index. In another place or time, I
could have been facing similar pressure.
As another
example, the University
of Warwick has attracted the attention of UCU due to its plans to make
staff redundant for not generating enough research income (not averaging over
£90K/yr).
What is
going on here? Yes, there is criticism due for the managers at specific
organisations. Mostly they live in a rarefied world where their productivity
(what they can nurture) is never questioned. For example, there is something to
be said for asking the question of why a Professor (or Reader or Lecturer) is
not submitted to the REF. But equally, where is the pressure on the upper parts
of the food chain to create an environment nurturing the staff expected to
produce those results. Are they hiring the right people? Are they not committed
to the people they have hired long term for the ideas they generate? And so
forth. Yes criticising the individual organisations is fair, but this is twigs and
branches. There a forest.
Consider the following key figures provided by
EPSRC (I am grateful for the transparency at EPSRC for making this data
available). In 2005/6,
EPSRC received 5138 grant proposals, funded 1477, and awarded £466 Million. In
2013/14, EPSRC received 1918 proposals, funded 620, and awarded £366 Million.
This change comes with a staggering impact. There has been a drop of £100 million
in the annual award and the number of awards has dropped by nearly 60%. The system has changed so proposers are more
cautious resulting in 62% fewer proposals. Further there is a trend to large
centres and it is unclear how credit for such a centre gets dispersed. But in
the climate left behind by this change, the managers at many institutions are beating
starving horses. Times have changed and there are a lot of well fed bean
counters. That is the forest and failure to recognise the problem and provide
leadership will only produce more of these kinds of tragedies.
Having
lived through this change, I can feel it. The atmosphere was more vibrant and there
was greater optimism a decade ago. The REF just reinforces this. While a unit
of assessment leads to the generation of the income, the income goes to the
organisation who use it as they see fit.
3) All of
this leads to leadership or lack thereof. When I talk to colleagues few think
the REF is a good thing. Few are aware of the impact of the revolutionary
change to funding. Few discuss the process of nurturing and supporting staff.
Few think the review process in REF is either efficient or particularly
edifying. But all seem scared to speak. When I hear news of the great UK Universities
it is things like Oxford may be allowed to charge more
money (£16k/yr). Well done for them. They are not saying dispense with REF and move the
money to research councils. They are not saying it should be distributed it
into a large number of small grants (say £120k over 3-4 years) run
competitively. Mostly they are saying nothing anyone needs to hear.
When I
listen to colleagues I hear unease and I hear admiration for Germany. Germany
did away with fees but that is a topic for another day. Meanwhile in the UK,
leadership and vision are often invoked but sadly lacking.
Note: I am
grateful to a colleague who pointed out the issues relating to the RC councils.
Fewer funded projects, larger grants and less money. I had missed this.
