Scrapping the REF would jeopardise the UK’s dual research funding

The UK’s higher education sector is under pressure like never before. All universities are feeling the effects of fixed student fees eroded by inflation, a squeeze on international recruitment and research funding that falls well short of full economic costs.

Adding to this is the growing uncertainty over the Research Excellence Framework (REF) – and of the quality-related (QR) funding (and equivalents in the devolved administrations) whose distribution it determines.

Repeated REF cycles have driven many benefits. Not the least of these are the focus on output quality over quantity, the sector’s engagement with the impact and public benefit agenda and, more recently, the encouragement of open research practices. None of this came free, however. The modest costs of the REF to the UK funding bodies were swamped by the seemingly substantial cost to the sector in preparation.

Some commentators are now arguing that the REF should be abandoned. But we would argue that even if it were, the government should want universities to continue with many of these activities. Importantly, REF preparations enhance productivity, mentor staff to publish better outputs, support staff in translating research into impact, and formalise strategic investment to support career development and the modernisation of our infrastructure.

The REF also provides a range of evidence, all in the public domain, about what universities produce. It’s arguably the best dataset on university research outcomes, providing a persuasive argument for continued investment. It provides accountability for the allocation of QR, a non-hypothecated funding stream worth more than £2 billion per year.

Of course, you could, in principle, maintain a dual research support system without the REF. But there are major risks that the Treasury would question its justification without a mechanism to audit the quality of the funded research.

Roughly half of QR makes good the 20+ per cent shortfall between the costs of research and the grants UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) provides. This shortfall could be dealt with if UKRI moved to full economic costing. However, we believe the existing tensions correctly encourage a strategic focus by universities in the grants they apply for and, importantly, curb application volume. Unrestricted applications would swamp the system under hypercompetition, with all its unintended consequences.

Dual support also facilitates a diversity of higher education institutions, from small, specialist institutions to large and broad research-intensives. It promotes co-investment, often alongside the private sector, in a research infrastructure fit for a knowledge-based economy. And it supports the “self-funded” research that is especially important in the arts, humanities and social sciences – and that, as evidenced by REF impact case studies, does so much to drive wealth and well-being in the UK.

Without a substantial QR funding stream, universities will invest less in long-term strategic but speculative research. In a month when two of the Nobel prizes were awarded to applications of AI, it’s worth asking how much of the fundamental early research in machine learning was self-funded by UK universities, made possible by a balanced dual support funding system.

Notwithstanding our support of QR, and dual support more widely, we realise that the sector is not making it easy for the government to support the REF process. Despite everyone’s best intentions, the delay to finalising the rules for REF 2029 is creating uncertainty that is undermining the exercise.

To be clear, we completely support the “people and culture” aspect of the REF’s revised “People, Culture and Environment” (PCE) section. Indeed, within the last cycle, the University of Glasgow championed the need for an improved research culture, not as an alternative to excellence but to allow more of us to excel.

This improved inclusion and quality was manifest in the results of the REF, with a considerable quantity of our outputs moving from the lower quartile in the Russell Group in 2014 to the upper quartile in 2021. This ability of inclusion to drive quality is why, in a future REF, we would advocate maintaining the cap on the number of outputs that can be selected from any single researcher.

Campus resource collection: What is research excellence and how can universities achieve it?

The PCE consultations thus far have been immensely useful and should certainly be embraced as a step towards a post-2029 assessment system. That process may be further informed by the ongoing pilot. However, for 2029 itself, at this stage the sector needs clarity and stability within the REF.

Of course we should push for greater emphasis on people and culture, but this could be done within our existing framework. We could achieve much by updating the REF panel guidance with the suggested indicators, both quantitative and qualitative, that the consultations have collected. 

The REF has driven many good things within universities and can drive more, too. We urge the sector to unite and work with the UK funding bodies and the government to finalise our REF process as quickly as possible. In doing so, they should take every opportunity to reduce bureaucracy, promote research integrity and, yes, reward a better culture.

Sir Anton Muscatelli is principal and vice-chancellor of the University of Glasgow, where Miles Padgett is Kelvin chair of natural philosophy (physics and astronomy).