The idea of eliminating the Research Excellence Framework (REF) is one that deserves serious attention, according to Duncan Ivison, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester. He openly challenges the effectiveness of this extensive and bureaucratic research assessment process, raising questions about its true value.
In a conversation with Research Professional News, Ivison candidly admitted that his views on the REF might be considered unconventional for someone in his position at a prestigious Russell Group university. Yet, he believes it is essential to explore alternative methods for evaluating the quality of research outputs.
When asked if he supports the abolition of the REF, Ivison responded thoughtfully, stating, "I think it should definitely be regarded as a serious possibility." He expressed deep concerns regarding the overall usefulness of the REF, referencing Australia’s decision to discontinue its similar program following a 2020 evaluation during his tenure as deputy vice-chancellor for research at the University of Sydney. He noted that the circumstances were different in Australia, as there was no direct funding linked to their framework, thus lowering the stakes involved.
In the UK, however, the REF plays a crucial role by directing approximately £2 billion in quality-related funding to institutions each year, making the stakes considerably higher.
Ivison continued by acknowledging the necessity of validating research quality, but he criticized the REF as being overly cumbersome and lacking in educational value. "It’s a massive, bureaucratic undertaking, and I’m not convinced we are gaining much insight from it anymore," he stated. "I would advocate for a thorough examination of the REF, although I recognize that my perspective is somewhat unique within the sector."
He also recognized the importance of the REF’s connection to quality-related research funding, which is allocated to universities based on their REF assessments. Ivison pointed out that leaders of research-intensive universities are often apprehensive about potential cuts to quality-related funding by the government. He firmly believes that the Treasury may question the necessity of this funding, but he underscored the vital role it plays in supporting research at UK universities. "I wonder, is the REF the only way to validate our research quality in a manner that upholds quality-related funding? Many colleagues with more experience than I believe it is; however, I think it’s worth exploring this question."
One innovative solution to potentially simplify the REF process could involve the use of artificial intelligence technologies. Recent research conducted by scholars at the University of Bristol, published in December, revealed that many universities are already utilizing AI to aid in the preparation of REF submissions, although the degree of implementation varies significantly between institutions.
"There exists a future scenario where the REF could become far less bureaucratic and more reliant on technology, and this is certainly an avenue worth investigating," Ivison suggested.
He added, "We must ensure that this method can effectively validate the quality of research, especially in fields like the humanities and creative arts, where metrics such as citations or journal impact factors may not apply as clearly. The assessment processes in these areas need to be more nuanced and sophisticated to truly reflect their value."
Be sure to check out the complete interview with Duncan Ivison, set to be published by Research Professional News on February 11.
