Sack the REF

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.