Equality and employment aspects of the UK Research Excellence Framework

Abstract This article analyses issues of equality and selection arising from the preparation for, and submissions to, the Research Excellence Framework 2021 (REF2021), the most recent of the UK’s cyclical research evaluation exercises, and looks ahead to REF2029. Each REF, and before it RAE, cycle has its own rules, with equality being a matter of particular focus from 2014. While the changes wrought by the Stern review led to a greater number of submitted staff in REF2021, they also potentially caused aspects of equality to be undermined by the flexibility brought about by partially decoupling authors from outputs (which also raised questions about the use of outputs by redundant staff). This article examines the equitability of the rules regarding eligibility regarding submission including the test of significant responsibility; it analyses the approaches taken to the sensitive issues of redundancy and outputs; and it considers the varied interpretations of when to apply for reductions to reflect staff circumstances before outlining potential risks and benefits to equality in the current REF cycle.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Research Evaluation
Published
2024-12-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaf042
Primary Topic
Global Health Workforce Issues
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Equality and employment aspects of the UK Research Excellence Framework

James Hand
Research Evaluation
Global Health Workforce Issues
article

Equality and employment aspects of the UK Research Excellence Framework

James Hand
article en

Abstract

Abstract This article analyses issues of equality and selection arising from the preparation for, and submissions to, the Research Excellence Framework 2021 (REF2021), the most recent of the UK’s cyclical research evaluation exercises, and looks ahead to REF2029. Each REF, and before it RAE, cycle has its own rules, with equality being a matter of particular focus from 2014. While the changes wrought by the Stern review led to a greater number of submitted staff in REF2021, they also potentially caused aspects of equality to be undermined by the flexibility brought about by partially decoupling authors from outputs (which also raised questions about the use of outputs by redundant staff). This article examines the equitability of the rules regarding eligibility regarding submission including the test of significant responsibility; it analyses the approaches taken to the sensitive issues of redundancy and outputs; and it considers the varied interpretations of when to apply for reductions to reflect staff circumstances before outlining potential risks and benefits to equality in the current REF cycle.

Research EvaluationVol. 34
University of Portsmouth (GB)
Department of Education and Learning, Northern Ireland, UK Research and Innovation, Department for the Economy, Scottish Funding Council, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, Research England
Openalex Percentile: Top 52%
Global Health Workforce Issues
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.