Response to HEFCE Consultation on Approaches to Staff Submission, Output Portability And

Response to HEFCE Consultation on approaches to staff submission, output portability and eligibility to participate in the REF

Submission from the Association of Research Managers and Administrators UK

Introduction

With a membership of over 2,500 individuals, ARMA represents the UK’s research managers and administrators from a wide cross-section of universities and research institutes. Many ARMA members have been integral to managing and supporting submissions to past Research Excellence Framework (REFs) and Research Assessment Exercises (RAEs) and offer a wealth of experience and expertise. ARMA welcomes the opportunity of further consultation with HEFCE in order to ensure that the next REF gets off to the most optimal start.

This response

As with previous consultation responses, ARMA seeks to focus on the administrative implications of the proposals HEFCE has put forward, leaving matters of strategy and policy to the mission groups and individual institutions.

Our response, then, is brief and succinct.

Hamish Macandrew

Chief Operating Officer, ARMA UK

Email:

Annex A: Questions on staff and output portability

1. We are seeking feedback on the details required to finalise our outlined alternative approach to identifying staff who have a significant responsibility for research, and our proposed alternative approaches to output portability.
2. We have outlined below some questions that institutions may wish to consider in providing their views. Comments should be submitted by email to by 29 September 2017. Further information about these proposals is available in the webinar hosted on 19 July, and as summarised in David Sweeney’s recent posts on the HEFCE blog.

Identifying staff with a significant responsibility for research

1. As set out in HEFCE Circular letter 33/2017, many respondents to the consultation raised concern about the proposed approach to use contract status alone as the basis for identifying staff with significant responsibility for research. We are therefore engaging in further dialogue with the sector to finalise the details of an alternative approach whereby HEIs, working with their staff and with guidelines, identify who is in scope.
2. The alternative approach sets out four criteria that collectively identify staff in scope for inclusion. Staff:

• have an academic employment function of ‘research only’ or ‘teaching and research’
• are independent researchers
• hold minimum employment of 0.2 full-time equivalent
• have a substantive connection to the submitting institution.

1. Institutions may put in place processes to determine whether staff who meet these criteria do or do not have a significant responsibility for research. We are interested in views on any additional guidance that would be necessary to enable institutions to develop these processes. For example, are there generic key attributes that could identify staff with significant responsibility for research?

Clearly auditable, objective and comparable criteria need to be selected in order to measure ‘significant responsibility’ for research. ‘Significant responsibility’ needs definition but it is important that it can be derived relatively easily from existing data collected by institutions.

1. For clarity, research assistants will not be considered to meet the above criteria unless, exceptionally and demonstrably, they are deemed to be independent researchers.
2. In response to consultation feedback, we will work with the main panels to provide further guidance appropriate to the discipline areas on the definition of an ‘independent researcher’. This will build on a generic definition, developed from that used in REF 2014 (undertaking ‘independent research, leading or acting as principal investigator or equivalent on a research grant or significant piece of research work’.)[1] We are interested in views on whether there are further characteristics of

independent researchers, common across the main panels, that could be incorporated into the generic guidance.

It is not clear that discipline-specific definitions will add much value to a generic definition, and whether it will simply create confusion, particularly for interdisciplinary research. We urge simplicity.

1. We are also interested in any additional views or comments on the details of this approach, to support the funding bodies in finalising their decisions in this area.

In order for universities to plan effectively, they need to know how the HESA staff return will be used in auditing those individuals who meet the criteria, specifically which years will be used, and the relationship between this and the census date for academic staff inclusion.

For this planning to be effective, we need to know this calendar year the minimum, maximum and average number of outputs we will be expected to return per independent researcher FTE.

Output portability

1. We have presented two options for putting in place transitionary arrangements relating to output portability, to ensure the originating institution receives credit for outputs while also seeking
2. to address concerns raised in the consultation about researcher mobility and the practical implementation of the proposal. These options are briefly summarised as:
3. The simplified model, whereby outputs would be eligible for return by the originating institution (i.e. the institution where the research output was demonstrably generated and at which the member of staff was employed) as well as by the newly employing institution.
4. The hybrid approach, with a deadline (to be determined), after which a limited number of outputs would transfer with staff, with eligibility otherwise linked to the originating institution. (This would mean operating two rules for portability in this exercise: the outputs of staff employed before the specified date falling under the 2014 rules of full portability; outputs from staff employed after this date would fall under the new rules.)
5. While both options seek to address the aims set out in the Stern review and the issues raised in consultation responses, the potential complexity and burden indicated in paragraph 7b needs to

be considered against the less precise approach offered in paragraph 7a. We are interested in views on which of these options is preferable, and the rationale for this preference.

ARMA favours the simplified model as outlined in 9a.

The hybrid approach would land institutions with a significant additional administrative burden if implemented over the current REF-cycle as numerous negotiations would be required with staff and other institutions as to the ownership of specific outputs. The potential impact of doing this at the same time as the introduction of open-access requirements mid-cycle should be noted and avoided.

1. With reference to your preferred option, what are the challenges relating to implementation that need to be taken into account in developing the approach?

The simplified model would not require much change to current process.

It would perhaps be useful to analyse the REF2014 data to determine

a) the level of “double counting” that already took place

b) what additional double counting might have occurred had 9a been in place

It is possible that the “double counting” may not actually be that much larger than last time,

It would also be useful to undertake this analysis in order to help calculate the suggested outputs:FTE ratio, as “double counted” outputs would only need to be assessed once (if submitted to the same UOA)

However, if the intention is to implement full non-portability in future assessment exercises, the sooner this is communicated, the better, enabling sufficient time for institutions to prepare.

We have concerns about late publication of guidance and criteria. This was a real problem in the run-up to REF2014 and institutions must be given sufficient time to prepare codes of practice etc

ARMA(UK)
Beech House / T+44 (0)131 357 9854
Newmarket Road / E
Cambridge
CB5 8DT / VAT: 205 5771 17

The Association of Research Managers and Administrators (UK) is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Company number 5833769

[1] Assessment framework and guidance on submissions’ (REF 02.2011, paragraph 85b.