The Stifling Effect of REF Impact

Well, I’m back to civilization (more or less) and with my plan to watch a day of cricket at Sophia Gardens thwarted by the rain I decided to pop into an internet café and do a quick post about one of the rants that has been simmering on the back burner while I’ve been taking a break.

Just before the Easter vacation I had lunch with some colleagues from the Department of Physics & Astronomy at the University of Sussex. One of the things that came up was the changing fortunes of the department. After years of under-investment from the University administration,  it was at one time at such a low ebb  that it was in real danger of being closed down (despite its undoubted strengths in research and teaching).  Fortunately help came in the form of SEPnet, which provided funds to support new initiatives in Physics not only in Sussex but across the South East. Moreover, the University administration had belatedly realized that a huge part of the institutional standing in tables of international research rankings was being generated by the Department of Physics & Astronomy. In the nick of time, the necessary resources were invested and the tide was turned and there has been steady growth in staff and student numbers since.

As Head of the School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences I have had to deal with the budget for the Department of Physics & Astronomy. Just a decade ago very few physics departments in the UK were  financially solvent and most had to rely on generous subsidies from University funds to stay open. Those that did not receive such support were closed down, a fate which Sussex narrowly avoided but which befell, for example, the physics departments at Reading and Newcastle.

As I blogged about previously, the renaissance of Sussex physics seems not to be unique. Admissions to physics departments across the country are growing at a healthy rate, to the extent that new departments are being formed at, e.g. Lincoln and Portsmouth. None of this could have been imagined just ten years ago.

So will this new-found optimism be reflected in the founding of even more new physics departments? One would hope so, as I think it’s a scandal that there are only around 40 UK universities with physics departments. Call me old-fashioned but I think a university without a physics department is not a university at all. Thinking about this over the weekend however I realized that any new physics department is going to have grave problems under the system of allocating research funding known as the Research Excellence Framework.

A large slice (20%) of the funding allocated by the 2014 REF will be based on “Impact” which, roughly speaking, means the effect the research can be demonstrated to have had outside the world of academic research. This isn’t the largest component – 65% is allocated on the basic of the quality of “Outputs” (research papers etc) – but is a big chunk and will probably be very important in determining league table positions. It is probably going to be even larger in future versions of the REF.

Now here’s the rub. When an academic changes institution (as I have recently done, for example) he/she can take his/her outputs to the new institution. Thus, papers I wrote while at Cardiff could be submitted to the REF from Sussex. This is not the case with “impact”. The official guidance on submissions states:

Impact: The sub-panels will assess the ‘reach and significance’ of impacts on the economy, society and/or culture that were underpinned by excellent research conducted in the submitted unit, as well as the submitted unit’s approach to enabling impact from its research. This element will carry a weighting of 20 per cent.

The emphasis is mine.

The period during which the underpinning research must have been published is quite generous in length: 1 January 1993 to 31 December 2013. This is clearly intended to recognize the fact that some research take a long time to generate measurable impact. The problem is that the underpinning research must have been done within the submitting unit; it can’t be brought in from elsewhere. If the unit is new and did not exist for most of this period,then it is much harder to generate impact no matter how brilliant the staff it recruits. Any new departments in physics, or any other subject for that matter, will have to focus on research that can generate impact very rapidly indeed if it is to compete in the next REF, expected in 2018 or thereabouts. That is a powerful disincentive for universities to invest in research that may take many years to come to fruition. Five years is a particularly short time in experimental physics.

 

 

8 Responses to “The Stifling Effect of REF Impact”

  1. Mark Hindmarsh's avatar
    Mark Hindmarsh Says:

    The possibility of closing physics at Sussex came after the RAE of 1996. The recovery had already started by the time of the 2001 RAE, and when SEPnet got going in 2008, there was little danger. It is true that SEPnet investment completely transformed the department – it now has almost as many faculty as it did incoming students in the late 90s.

  2. Surely it’s fair though that the previous institution gets some credit for enabling the research that was done over such a long time period? The desperate shuffling of high profile staff in advance of a REF so that their credit is carried along with them always struck me as very sad for departments that have supported people for a long time, only to see them flit off when bigger/richer departments lure them off solely to boost their REF prospects.

  3. Ah. Well that’s a bit bonkers then 🙂

  4. Anton Garrett's avatar
    Anton Garrett Says:

    I would have thought that John Maynard Smith (evolutionary biology) and Harry Kroto (chemistry) got the place more than a few international citations.

    • telescoper's avatar
      telescoper Says:

      Harry Kroto got his Nobel Prize back in 1996 but actually left Sussex in despair in 2004 as the Chemistry department was almost closed down. It wasn’t, in the end, but it was all part of a pattern of under-investment. I’m glad to say he has come back (part-time) and I had a nice chat with him last year about long-term science strategy…

  5. Imagine a University Department, midway in the league tables. A bunch of new academics join, as others retire, including a new Head. They put in endless energy, reviewing courses, traveling around for recruitment, finding new and novel ways of marketing, find new funding streams not before explored – from unusual research funders to working with local companies – think of new ways to add more to a students time than just traditional lectures and all the admin and approval it requires. In short, they all use talent and effort – and take risks – which over time brings in more money (often indirectly, happy students help spread the good word) and raises the profile.
    At last! they are finally getting the funds to have the same level of staffing, resources, equipment and conference travel that some departments at other Universities take for granted.

    But then the powers that be come along, Department Y is an unpopular subject at the moment, needs subsidising, and Department X, well not sure why, popular subject, but just not doing well (funny how they all seem to never work late), they need subsidising too. Suddenly all that hard work amount for very little, why bother with all those late nights, and criticism for trying new ideas.

    I say one dept subsiding another, as Departments are the only parts of a University that bring in money, and while it technically may not exactly work like this, I presume more or less the department will keep a percentage of any research/teaching income and the rest is sliced off.
    How much is sliced off is of course up to Management, some being spent on admin/centre, some on capital investment/savings, and some to subsidise other academic depts. [I should note, this is all my presumption from working in a non-academic dept, and could miss the point]

    I’ve pondered this for years.
    While closing a department can be short term thinking (especially in the example above, Universities close Physics depts, only for others to open them a few years later). Where do you draw the line? How long does a department suck up the money from others around it? If a University has a few strength areas, are you killing that success by using a good portion of that money to fund other parts.

    Again, not advocating that all areas need to be in ‘surplus’ (or disputing your well put points) but it does seem to have two sides and seems a difficult question to get right.

  6. […] future  in the “flat cash” situation we’re currently in. There’s also the stifling effect of theResearch Excellence Framework I’ve blogged about before. I don’t know whether Newcastle University intends to expand its staff numbers in Physics or […]

Leave a comment