The Research Excellence Framework (REF)

The REF has provided an opportunity for institutions to feature public engagement with research, and for this activity to be recognised as valued and significant. NCCPE research  has shown that around half of the submitted case studies in previous exercises have featured public engagement. This is despite concerns from some that public engagement impacts are less likely to be rated highly, and are harder to demonstrate than (for instance) economic impacts

The proposals for the next REF, in 2029, look likely to increase the spotlight on engaging with the public. The Impact Profile has been renamed ‘Engagement and Impact’, to better recognise the contribution of engagement activity (not just the impacts it can help to realise). REF 2029 also places a much more explicit focus on the need to improve the underpinning culture of research. This has been an important focus for the public engagement professional community since the NCCPE was founded in 2007, with an explicit culture change mission. The NCCPE’s EDGE tool is a widely used framework to support universities to work in ways that REF 2029 is encouraging – openly, collaboratively and in a people-centred fashion.

This briefing explains the evolution of the REF, and the opportunities it provides to embed professional support for public engagement within research. We have produced a linked collection which traces the history of the REF in more detail and shares key NCCPE resources which have fed into its development. These provide useful intelligence about how to develop a robust and rigorous approach to assessing the impacts arising from public engagement.

We have also produced a briefing document to explain the current state of play with the development of REF2029.

The Research Excellence Framework is a key mechanism used by research funders in the UK to allocate block grants to HEIs to invest in their research infrastructure. The REF is undertaken every 6 or 7 years, to retrospectively assess the quality of research, the research environment and the impact realised through research in UK research organisations.

It forms one leg of the so-called dual support system:

1. Block Grants for Research Infrastructure via the REF: The REF releases so called Quality Related (QR) funding which supports the foundational costs of conducting research, such as staffing, facilities, and general research infrastructure. 
2. Grants for Specific Research Projects: The second stream comes from competitive project-based funding awarded by the UK’s research councils (UKRI). This funding is targeted, supporting specific projects that have applied for and been awarded grants based on rigorous peer review.

The REF objectives are to:

• provide accountability for public investment in research and produce evidence of the benefits of this investment
• provide benchmarking information and establish reputational yardsticks, for use in the higher education sector and for public information
• inform the selective allocation of funding for research

Given how much funding is at stake, it is not surprising that the REF is a source of significant controversy. When REF2014 was first announced, its proposal to include the assessment of the social and economic impact of research was greeted with significant alarm. Many feared that it would lead to an overly instrumental focus on economic impact and would harm the freedom to pursue curiosity-driven and blue skies research. 

The exercise is criticised by others as an expensive bureaucratic imposition, involving as it does 30+ discipline panels who review 1000s of research outputs and impact case studies which HEIs spend several years preparing, at significant expense of time and resources. There are regular calls for it be slimmed down or even scrapped, and concerns raised  how the exercise distracts and distorts the work of HEIs.

Others argue that the exercise is efficient and good value for money: the costs of running the exercise are significantly less than the costs incurred by the other leg of dual support, the allocation of multiple research grants. They point out the importance of the sector demonstrating its accountability. And they value the freedom and stability that the block grant provides to HEIs, enabling long term planning. 

As the sector prepares for REF 2029, the controversy continues. Proposals to adapt the Environment profile so that is also focuses on people and culture, and to increase its weighting, have raised significant concerns. As in previous iterations, these concerns are being addressed through a pilot programme. And at every stage of the development, the proposals are put out for consultation.

The NCCPE has supported to evolution of the REF, for a number of reasons.

Importantly, it contributes significantly to the sector’s public accountability. Although the exercise is managed from within the HE system, it does require us to look at the value of the work we do ‘from the outside in’. It encourages a responsive and accountable research system that retains the trust and support of government and wider society.

It also forces us to review our collective purpose and to embrace innovation and change. It encourages us to step back, think long term and work collectively to ensure our contribution to knowledge and understanding continues to evolve and meet the needs of society. A useful framework for understanding how the REF has changed is one that has developed within the sociology of knowledge which describes three ‘modes’ of knowledge:

• Mode One knowledge (traditional academic research): Traditional, disciplinary, academically driven research
• Mode Two knowledge (applied research): Context-driven, problem-focused, interdisciplinary research aimed at practical applications’
• Mode Three Knowledge (collaborative research): Integrative, holistic research emphasizing systemic innovation, co-creation of knowledge, and societal impact

REF 2014, with the introduction of impact assessment, nudged us to value Mode Two approaches. REF 2021 consolidated this, and by increasing the weighting for impact, encouraged a re-balancing of the two modes. REF 2029 continues this evolution, and with the increased focus on engagement and culture moves us more towards a genuine balance of the three modes.

This is good news for public engagement. The kinds of practices, values and expertise that have been developed within the public engagement professional community will be vital in enabling HEIs to demonstrate how they can work in the more open, inclusive and engaged ways that the REF is requiring.

At the NCCPE’s 2024 Engage conference, we invited Steven Hill, Director of Research at Research England and chair of the REF 20929 steering group to share his vision for what research – and the REF - might look like in 2040.

Steven’s vision of a collaborative, challenge focused and collaborative research sector, drew heavily on the characteristics of Mode Three working:

“The bulk of our research will become transdisciplinary and engaged. Research in Universities will become increasingly clustered around societal challenges and not academic disciplines. Research will depend on multi-dimensional teams integrating knowledges from a range of publics and stakeholders. Importantly in that we will need to eliminate knowledge hierarchies. [] As a result, the primary outputs for research will be actionable knowledge and there will be reduced focus on scholarly outputs. Collaboration will be the key metric by which universities judge themselves: collaboration with all sorts or people and communities to deliver the research that they need.”

There is a still a long journey to travel to see this kind of embedded, engaged practice mainstreamed in the university sector. Public engagement professionals have a vital role to play in helping us to realise it.