ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY
REF AWAYDAY 2015 – TOWARDS REF 2020:
SUMMARY OF BREAKOUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS AND FEEDBACK
Breakout groups were given sets of questions – repeated below – to guide their discussions,
but were not expected to stick closely to them, but to discuss openly, frankly and widely within
the parameters of each session, looking for common themes and overarching issues as well
as UoA-specific issues, and were encouraged to volunteer innovative, creative approaches to
the challenges they identified.
What follows below is a synthesis and summary of the discussions and feedback provided,
rather than verbatim minutes. Many thanks to the participants, group chairs and in particular
the rapporteurs.
Assessing and critiquing the REF 2014 submissions






What were the highlights of your group’s REF 2014 results, and why?
What were the most disappointing outcomes, and why?
Are there particular strengths or weaknesses that can be identified in the confidential
feedback?
Looking back on our preparation for REF 2014, what were the actions or strategies
that most helped us to achieve the highlights that you have identified?
And what might we have done better, to mitigate the weaknesses or better capitalise
upon the strengths?
What are the key learning points that we should take from our performance in
REF2014?
Specific highlights identified
UoA 4
UoA 15
UoA 16
UoA 17
UoA 19
UoA 20
UoA 22
UoA 25
UoA 29
UoA 30
UoA 35
UoA 36
estimation of output and impact strength
Hip replacement impact case study
Growth from not being in a position to submit in 2008.
impact template and case studies demonstrating value of longer-term and more
recent impacts
impact narrative good despite weak underpinning research
Headline results
Helpful feedback from panel.
The submission as a whole, given it was a first-time submission
General quality of outputs – 65% at 3* and 4* - and a positive reaction to the impact
template.
Quality of outputs, including proportion at 4* and a 3* environment despite the size
of the unit.
Impact case studies in particular
Proportion of outputs at 3* and 4* - 70%.
Specific weaknesses identified
UoA 4
UoA 5
UoA 15
UoA 16
UoA 17
lack of differentiation in thresholds
proportion of unclassified outputs
impact case studies criticised for disconnect between local and institutional
strategies
impact case studies reported immature impacts
retention of ECRs included in the submission
1
UoA 19
UoA 20
UoA 22
UoA 25
UoA 29
UoA 30
UoA 35
UoA 36
outputs not as highly ranked as anticipated
Ranking of outputs uneven and guesswork about what went best. Rising
expectations and standards a problem.
with hindsight, impacts was not as effectively dealt with as it might have been
disconnect between ‘mock’ and actual assessments of quality; the unit had done
even worse than predicted.
the 10% of outputs rated at 1* that dragged things down; poorer research
environment rating.
that one impact case study failed, and the fact that the impacts submitted didn’t
reflect the public profile of the department.
The number of 1* or unclassified outputs, and also issues around handling practicebased outputs.
The impact template – it was too generic and did not include enough about future
plans.
Leading submission development
The Convenor and Co / Deputy Convenor roles were crucial, and need to be filled by
individuals capable of, and supported by their HoDs and Deans to give, strong leadership.
Convenors must not be left isolated. Getting the engagement of non-research-active HoDs
was felt to be particularly challenging
Ensuring that each Convenor had the support of a Co or Deputy Convenor who attended the
same events and training, etc, and was therefore able to both effectively support and take over
from the Convenor as necessary was essential for sustainability and continuity. Convenors
need to be allowed more time dedicated to meeting this aspect of their roles.
It is also essential to understand that the role of Departmental Research Convenor is distinct
from that of a UoA Convenor: clarity of role is key.
REF preparations needed team ownership, leadership and management to support the
Convenors, from individual researchers all the way up to CMT and the most senior
management. There needed to be better integration of process, policy and task at all levels.
It was unanimously agreed that too much had happened too late last time round, which had
meant that there had not been sufficient time and space to reflect on what was being proposed
in some cases, leading to decisions that might have been taken differently; and in any case
had consequences in other areas that could have been resolved more effectively with more
time. This was particularly the case with UoA 23 – it had been right to try and develop a distinct
submission and then right to decide that it wouldn’t work, to strip its assets and put them in
other submissions, but the decision had been made too late to ensure the maximum benefit.
Convenors must be given a clear period of time (two weeks at least) ahead of final submission
to ensure they have the time and space to make the final changes required of them.
There was also a concern that Faculty resources had been brought to bear really only at the
last sprint for the line, rather than over a more sustained period. There had perhaps also been
too much attention given to drafting and re-drafting the paperwork than on achieving the best
possible outputs and impacts. There were concerns that there had been too much institutional
interference in the paperwork, often very last minute, which had not necessarily helped.
We are already nearly two years into the assessment period for the next REF and there was
a feeling in certain quarters, especially in relation to ‘new’ UoAs, that this represented a lost
period of time for planning and preparation. A more effective steer was needed from higher
management to make the next REF a management as well as a personal target.
2
Planning needs to take place at the level of individuals, UoAs, and cross-departmental themes.
It was noted that some institutions, especially in Health areas, had made great use of
employing clinical staff on a fractional basis – submission sizes in certain institutions were
over-inflated by comparison with reality. But this strategy had been of benefit, and it was
something we should not be averse to, including in other areas. But it had to be planned for.
Setting a quality threshold
It was felt that aiming for a higher threshold than the 2* expectation set by the institution,
enabling a leaner submission, might have been of benefit. This would suggest a need for
variable thresholds in the next REF exercise, taking into account the actual position and
strength of individual units. What might make up suitable benchmarks?
There was also discussion about making the threshold based on an average quality score
rather than being an absolute threshold – although this was possible in REF 2014 it was only
so in exceptional cases. Would we have been able to submit more colleagues if we had
accepted three strong and one weaker output and would this have had beneficial
consequences? There were concerns that some submissions had been too small and had
therefore been penalised, so submitting more colleagues at the expense of average quality
might have actually worked in our favour.
It was felt that the 2* threshold had actually had negative consequences because it was rather
general. Those people most capable of producing the highest quality of research had not felt
stretched to achieve it (2* was ‘too easy’).
However, might removing the ‘long tail’ that the 2* threshold allowed in some UoAs, have
negative consequences?
Rating the quality of work
Estimating the strength / quality of outputs and impact was felt to have been effective in some
areas, but our (internal/external) assessment of outputs did not match the result in others.
They were usually overly optimistic.
It is important to establish the nature of work that will score well – and where the evidence
comes from that informs our strategy and why we should trust it. Decisions were taken to avoid
certain kinds of work, for example, that seemed unjustified in hindsight, when the REF results
and other institutions’ submissions in which such work had been included, became available.
Dealing with practice as research had been tricky and we needed to do more work to get this
right in future.
It was also important to choose the UoA wisely – the same research could have better quality
outcomes depending on the UoA it was submitted to.
External reviewers had been helpful, but in some cases they had often been selected very
late, leading to concerns that they were perhaps the ‘leftovers’ from the sector, and because
it could become, particularly towards the closing stages of our preparations a very
transactional relationship, there were also concerns about the rigour of the feedback received.
For example, in some cases a clear steer was given that qualitative work would do more poorly
than quantitative work, which proved unjustified by the end results. It was felt that having a
more sustained relationship and longer-term engagement with external reviewers would be
helpful.
3
It was also felt sometimes that reviewers had been asked, or had been prepared to comment
on, work that fell outside their main area of expertise; advice on sub-specialisms was essential
but if it was unreliable, it was not helpful. We should not be averse to having a large number
of reviewers reviewing only small numbers of outputs in future, and as a matter of good
practice every item reviewed should be looked at by at least two reviewers. There was also a
variety of practice in how reviewers reported, and there should certainly be some uniformity,
at least at the level of the submitting unit, but preferably across the board. It was felt also that
where multiple reviewers were involved, it would be helpful to bring them together to form a
panel to discuss their ratings and agree on a common score, achieving a much more
integrated process.
There were concerns that the process for the selection of external reviewers had been
ineffective and a different approach was needed in future. Ideally reviewers should not be
personally known to the submitting department, and they should have a background of REF
or RAE panel membership or having been part of a strong submission. [Editor’s note: for REF
2014, external reviewers were expected to have been an RAE 2001 or 2008 panel member,
or to have led an RAE 2008 submission attaining at least 2*. UoA Convenors nominated
candidates meeting these criteria who were approved by the Deputy Vice Chancellor for
Research. In exceptional cases, these criteria were relaxed to enable the appointment of
individuals with specific subject specialisms].
Reviewers could also have had a wider brief – they had typically been asked only to comment
on outputs. Certainly, we need to ensure we are making the best use of reviewers. There was
some suggestion that we should be capable of effective quality review internally, and the best
support external reviewers might have provided was around the narrative statements.
Developing impact case studies
Understanding what impact was, was a major issue. It is still a problem. More needs to be
done to provide effective training and development in respect of impact.
Every research project should have an impact strategy, whether the funder requires it or not.
Impacts work best, or so it seems, when there is a good connection between the research and
end users who can benefit from or implement it. Impact has to start with the research, rather
than being added on later. Research results need better dissemination.
We need to improve the ‘follow through’ from research projects to help generate impact. We
need to allow time at the end of research projects, including keeping research staff on, to
ensure that impact activities can be put in train and the research findings effectively written up
and disseminated. Case studies representing a quick process from research to impact could
be effective, but need to be carefully targeted to have good results.
We need to be careful about where the underpinning research was done – the actual research,
not just development of impact from it, needs to happen at the current institution. It was also
crucial to ensure that impacts being claimed did not come out of the work of doctoral students,
unless staff had a clear role in those projects. Impacts based on a long history of research
seemed to work best.
A key concern around the impact case studies had been around collecting the relevant
evidence to corroborate the case studies. It was essential to ensure that all colleagues were
aware of the importance of doing so, to facilitate the impact trail which would be crucial to the
drafting of case studies for the next REF.
It was also important to ensure that impact case studies were being identified and developed
for the next REF. In doing this, and recognising that some colleagues are not keen on impact
4
or their work is not best suited to achieving impact, one strategy that might be worth
considering would be to identify a small number of individuals who were seen to be a ‘good
bet’ for producing impact for the next REF.
It was noted that some institutions had brought in professional assistance, or support from
other universities, to help write impact case studies, and that this was reportedly effective, and
it was suggested that this should be considered for REF 2020.
We could also have been more cunning – could the same case study have been submitted in
more than one unit of assessment? It may actually be a useful strategy to get smaller UoAs to
work together collaboratively to achieve this, though there was a danger that the case study
would be scored differently depending on the UoA to which it was submitted.
Supporting the research environment
We still have a culture which is dominated by teaching rather than research, and this colours
how research is approached and supported. Deans need to ensure research is an ongoing
priority and be less risk-averse in supporting it.
Institutional strategies need to be more joined up with research and at more local levels. Every
process needs reflect and to help embed research culture. Policies have to be clear.
It was noted that the research environment covered not only submitted staff, but their
colleagues as well and there would be activities that they engaged in that would contribute to
the research environment and could usefully be advanced as evidence. This applied equally
to impact.
There were concerns about the quantity of research income and doctoral awards claimed.
Clearly dealing with the root cause – raising income generation and timely completion – was
essential, but it was also critical to ensure that data about income generated and awards made
was properly coded to ensure that it could be claimed in the next REF, as HESA data is relied
upon and is finalised each October following the financial year end in July. There was a sense
that research income had been raised in spite of, rather than because of, institutional support.
Questions were raised about the division of research income data and doctoral completions.
For many UoAs in REF 2014 this had been what it would be, but it was noted that the
submission to UoA 3 had done very well because it had been able to include a lot of activity
relating to Health research. If submissions were to be made in future in additional Health
areas, what would the consequence of this be?
It was noted that outside collaboration had been positively commented upon, as was having
a lively academic environment – having an early career researcher plan was seen to have
helped.
Finally it was noted that the environment statements had been quite structural – i.e. they had
explained details relating to seminars, support for PhD students, etc – and more holistic than
in RAE 2008. While such information was requested, it might be better to take an approach
that e.g. “QR income has been used to support A, B, C, D and E” as this would enable more
of a narrative. This might also help deal with concerns that statements had been too bland, or
too centralised, and had worked as ‘boilerplate’ text without allowing for the identity of the
submitting unit to come through effectively. There was perhaps also a lack of institutional
ambition, which was reflected in the narrative statements.
5
Ensuring effective recognition
A mixed reaction from the university was notable when the results were published. UoAs that
did not achieve any 4* rating were made to feel second-class, which seemed unfair,
particularly where it was the first time such a submission had been made.
How do we enable a good REF submission next time?
1. Identifying and supporting returnable staff




What are the strengths and weaknesses in our current ‘complement’ of staff? What
strategies should we adopt to address any perceived weaknesses?
Do we provide appropriate levels of support for returnable staff, especially ECRs, and
what might we do better?
Were our processes for selecting staff for REF2014 appropriate and satisfactory?
Were our processes for recognising and dealing with individual staff circumstances
appropriate and satisfactory?
Importance of having a strategy
What do we want to achieve / what do we aspire to? This is crucial to setting a strategy. Three
potential strategies – aim to submit everyone (or, at least, aim to maximise everyone’s ability
to be submitted); aim to consolidate and grow existing strengths; or aim to control the research
focus into a more concentrated submission. Do you define the latter two in terms of themes,
or groups? An inclusive approach had been taken for REF 2014, but it was not clear whether
it should be continued.
Going forward with the culture of everyone being submitted to the REF – which was the
strategy for UoA 29 towards REF 2014, although it was ultimately unsuccessful – may have
future benefits around submission size. Cohesion and sustainability are key.
Once a strategy has been identified, this needs to be made clear to the submitting group
repeatedly. Understanding what went right and what went wrong in the REF 2014 submission,
sharing the Awayday discussions for example, would be helpful in making this a joint effort.
The staffing strategy, both broadly and in its specific components, needs to support, rather
than impact negatively upon, the environment narrative.
Identifying strengths and weaknesses and selecting staff for submission
It is difficult to know who might be able to be submitted – not easy within a department, but
there’s also the need to understand who in the department can contribute to other UoAs, and
who outside the department can usefully be brought in to the submission.
Individuals need to (be helped to) develop and understand a ‘selection time line’ identifying
what they need to do be submittable and by when, aligning plans with the REF publishing
cycle. These objectives and research plans need to be followed up on though. This is a key
part of the appraisal process – or should be.
6
Like the submitting unit as a whole, individuals also need a strategy in terms of whether to
consolidate existing areas of research strength or to develop new ones. There is however a
danger in being too strategic – we need both quality and quantity to compete effectively.
Colleagues were ‘left behind’ by the 2* threshold, or by the ‘fit’ of their research in REF 2014,
and it is important to ensure that when this does happen, those who are affected continue to
be encouraged and supported. A number of colleagues perceived to be working at high level
were left out of REF 2014 submissions, but it was not clear why, creating dissatisfaction.
Ensuring that colleagues declare any mitigating circumstances is essential, but could often be
(for perfectly good reasons) difficult to achieve.
Supporting researchers
Appropriate staff support starts with appropriate appointments to roles within departments,
and enabling those role-holders to provide the support through giving sufficient credit / relief
through AWBM. (This also applies more generally to ensuring the trade-off between teaching
and research is given sufficient attention). Everyone feels they are time-poor; a very quick way
to get more research done would be simply to appoint more people, so the non-research load
is better spread.
REF5 statements made claims about what the university was doing or would do to support
Early Career Researchers – in particular that they are given additional time to research. It is
crucial to have HoD support to ensure this is put into place. Similarly, if other claims about
support more generally were made, this need to be implemented. What is actually needed
must be disseminated down to appraisers / course group (deputy head) level, as this is where
decisions about time allocation are made.
What about the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers? This needs
to be implemented. [Editor’s note: it has been, and has been recognised by the award of the
HR Excellence in Research Award. The fact that this is not simply known about is, however,
an issue we need to be addressed, as well as to ensure that we retain the HR Excellence in
Research Award, due for renewal in spring 2017].
There were concerns about the level of support available at an institutional level, including in
RDCS, for supporting research and researchers – colleagues are doing their best, but the
perception is that the valuable role played by Caroline Strange has been allowed to lapse.
We should consider teaching-only posts, allowing colleagues to play to their strengths and
follow their interests, while at the same time freeing other colleagues up to spend more of their
time on research. Ensuring we also use teaching cleverly is important – ECRs in particular
need better support to help understand what they can and can’t do or change in relation to the
modules they teaching, and how to feed their research into their teaching. We can also be
more creative about module choice and options for newly appointed staff.
Some UoAs have already lost staff – retaining as many as we can is critical. A key reality in
our institution is that researchers are isolated, and anecdotal evidence suggests that wanting
to have colleagues working in the same area is a key reason for moving.
7
Recruitment processes
All appointments need to be made in line with the strategy of the relevant UoA.
We need to ensure we consider an individual’s research track record when appointing to posts
that involve research, including where appropriate, administration of research. Recruitment
panels need to include existing researchers to enable this. UoA Convenors should be involved
in all appointments to help determine how potential appointees can be best integrated into the
unit’s research strategy.
It is useful for newly-appointed staff to have some sense of the expectations surrounding the
REF, but there are very few guidelines to give to such colleagues about this. It is essential that
newly-appointed staff come into an environment that is positive and energising.
2. Producing quality outputs




What more can we do to help produce 3* and 4* outputs, and in the appropriate
number?
How do we best assess the quality of our outputs, and how should be best use external
reviewers?
What should we do in terms of ‘mock REF’ or ‘stock taking’ processes?
Are the open access requirements of the next REF sufficiently understood, are they
being appropriately applied, and what else can we do to ensure compliance?
Producing and identifying good quality outputs
First and foremost, we need to know what we are producing. We need an integrated approach
to the ongoing monitoring of research activity, ensuring that systems are streamlined so that
researchers are not asked repeatedly for the same data; perhaps this could be linked to
ARRO.
We need to develop a better understanding of what the different REF star ratings mean – can
we identify exemplar papers that we think are 4*, 3*, 2* etc. (This will be different in different
UoAs). In particular, understanding what is 1* so that it can be avoided is crucial. We should
make better use of some elements of the REF e.g. the rules around double-weighting. Perhaps
all monographs should simply be double-weighted, but we need to develop our understanding
to ensure that we get these decisions right.
Notwithstanding the value of external reviewers, we need to be able to place much more
confidence in internal review processes. It is probably impractical to arrange anonymous
internal review, but collaborative review panels might prove acceptable.
We need to work more collaboratively, both within departments and Faculties and across
them, to ensure we challenge and stretch one another to encourage the production of the
highest quality research. This will allow us to capitalise on good individual projects and develop
critical mass, integrating across the UoA. We need to be more interdisciplinary, and there may
be some value in strategically intervening to move people between groups, to achieve this.
We also need to be wiser about cross-referring outputs between UoAs – there was a sense
we did not do this enough.
8
Staff need better advice about where to publish – are there particular journals we should target
to maximise the chances of a higher quality rating? This could be part of a research mentoring
scheme teaming experienced and inexperienced researchers.
In order to achieve 3* and 4* quality, research needs to be given a good run up via effective
workload planning and deployment of QR funds. This could be done through secondment and
fellowship schemes which are already in place in some departments. Resources are always
an issue, but it was noted that there appeared to be a correlation between the best outputs
and the busiest staff. Was it as much as matter of creating an atmosphere of enthusiasm than
anything else?
We can also buy in good quality outputs, and should not be averse to doing so. This means
ensuring that recruitment decisions take account of a researcher’s publication record.
Achieving open access
We need to find ways to motivate people to use ARRO to ensure their work meets REF open
access requirements. It will not work if responsibility is devolved to individual academics. Two
solutions were proposed, either drop box or an equivalent directed to central admin, or an
online front end to ARRO. [Editor’s note: it is not clear what the online front end to ARRO might
be, as it already has one!].
3. Developing impact






Who ‘owns’ the REF3a strategies? Who is responsible for measuring and reporting the
progress that has been made against them?
What else needs to be happening to ensure we are delivering our impact strategies?
How can we best generate, identify and select excellent impact case studies?
What progress has been made already and is this sufficient? If not what more can be
done?
What additional systems do we need to capture and record the relevant evidence of
impact?
What more can we do to enable impacts to be generated from our research?
Managing / supporting the REF3a strategies
Convenors, in association with their HoD and Deputy Dean for / Director of Research have a
crucial role to play in ensuring that their REF3a strategies are implemented, and linked up
effectively with Faculty and institutional-level strategies.
A budget is crucial – and if the REF3a does not show how funds and resources are to be made
available to researchers for the support of impact, a strategy doing this must be developed.
Delivering impact
First and foremost we must understand impact better, in order to deliver it better. RDCS has
some training activities under development which should be better advertised, and there might
be a call for a specific REF impact workshop.
9
A crucial step is resource – impact must become a part of grant bids, where permitted; and
where it is not, we should still be insisting on impact plans, setting out actions and resourcing
requirements, to accompany any bids. Engaging with HoDs to ensure that this becomes a
monitored, reported action is key.
For researchers whose funding does not extend to impact, an institutional fund to which
researchers can apply – making a good case in doing so of course – should be set up.
We need to get much better at ‘outward facingness’ e.g. conferences, networking, engaging
visiting speakers and other researchers. Working with research users we need to ensure we
routinely capture their needs, feedback and other relevant data – both to evidence impact and
to guide us forward.
An audit trail, allowing and facilitating the collection of impact evidence, needs to be built into
the design of the research.
We must also avoid relying too heavily on one or a few members of staff. If we lose them, this
can really cause difficulties around impact.
Getting good case studies for the next REF
The key thing is to identify impacts – with clear evidence of change or engagement. There
should be a Faculty audit process to look at research carried out over the past ten years and
to track its impact, and to identify the case studies to take forward. There is a balance to be
struck between identifying and submitting existing impacts, and developing new impacts. In
many ways it’s probably already very late in the day to be thinking about developing new
impacts, as they are unlikely to be sufficiently mature in time for the next REF to score well.
We might be able to submit developed versions of impact case studies submitted to REF 2014,
so long as there is something distinct and different by comparison, but we cannot rely on this
being the case until we have the REF rules and regulations.
Once we have case studies developed, we should put together a business plan to develop
them ready for submission. This might take the form of setting up something like the
Department of Engineering and the Built Environment’s Advanced Practice Office.
It will be very useful to share best practice among UoAs, which means giving time to enable
convenors to do this. Even enabling the circulation of draft material would be of benefit.
Colleagues need to get over their embarrassment at seeing impact case studies as blowing
their own trumpet.
It was worth noting that (on average) a single case study was worth the equivalent of 13
research outputs, in terms of the score. This was a clear reason to ensure sufficient time was
spent in developing it.
Other comments
The ARU website needs serious work. It is not fit to support any aspect of research or internal
administration and management. It is not at all easy to find details of colleagues or their
activities. Is there any evidence that any of it is fit for purpose? The website is a crucial tool
10
for the dissemination of our research – for example, it can be used to provide statistics for web
downloads.
4. Developing the research environment






Who ‘owns’ the REF5 strategies? Who is responsible for measuring and reporting the
progress that has been made against them?
What else needs to be happening to ensure we are delivering our impact strategies?
What more needs to be done to generate, capture and store evidence relating to the
research environment?
What can be done to develop collaboration externally and internally?
Where are we with PGR supervision and completion, and support?
Where are we with income generation and grant capture?
Managing / supporting the REF5 strategies
REF convenors, in association with their HoD who has access to relevant data, must take
charge. For some UoAs, the HoD as budget-holder is best placed to lead on this. Without the
involvement of the HoD, this becomes very difficult for the Convenor who has no control. Staff
tend to be resistant to change when they are already under-resourced.
There were however concerns that it is at the next level up (Faculty?) where there is more of
an issue, as departmental-level colleagues are less able to shape Faculty support, despite
having to be responsible for reporting on them in a REF submission, e.g. committee structures.
Using QR funds effectively
We should bear in mind that some UoAs, and therefore the QR funds that they earned, were
cross-Faculty undertakings. In these cases, dividing the QR funding by Faculty may lead to
such cross-Faculty areas being under-supported, and efforts should be made to avoid this.
QR funding should be allocated to UoAs, and plans for the use of QR funds should be prepared
at UoA level rather than Faculty level.
A clear link between how QR funds, and sabbaticals, have led to specific REF outputs and
impacts needs to be made, as this can help us understand how best to deploy QR funding in
future.
We should have clear and transparent strategies in place that explain how QR income, HEIF
income, and the Research Enhancement Fund are deployed across the institution.
Enabling and supporting (research) staff
Strategies and policies around staffing, supporting postgraduate research students and early
career researchers was always a critical part of the environment statement. Key issues that
make for a good research environment revolve around teaching load, sabbatical opportunities,
research travel budget; research seminar series. It is essential to get the basics right, for
example, grievances around allocation of working space have derailed or detracted from
conversations around enabling and supporting research; research meetings become
resourcing meetings.
11
Even small amounts of money can really help, such as the modest sums that have enabled
writing retreats at a departmental level. We may already have this kind of thing in place, but
need to do more to better promote them so staff are aware. Initiatives that work well in one
area can be replicated elsewhere.
There were concerns about the lack of strategy / policy to ensure the sustainability of research.
All too often projects came to an end without there being bridging arrangements in place to
help ensure we retain the staff we have supported.
Researchers’ careers need to be better supported, and reflected in the environment
statements. We can use QR funds to allow ECRs in particular to run conferences and develop
networks – this is gives a good grounding for their work. Periods of research leave are crucial.
Mentoring needs to be embedded at all levels and in a variety of contexts e.g. research
mentoring for ECRs; teaching mentoring for ECRs; mentoring for people taking research
leave; mentoring for new staff, etc.
Enabling and supporting doctoral students
We need a careful recruitment policy, including specific advertisements, to attract the best
PhD students. PhD students are also critical to retaining staff.
We should be using QR money to appoint PhD students now, and to ensure that they complete
in time for inclusion in the next REF.
PhD students need to be better engaged in the day-to-day life of their departments. They also
need to be encouraged to take an active part in this, which can be challenging when large
proportions are not locally-based, including overseas. Even those locally-based do not
necessarily participate as we would wish – one area asked its doctoral students to nominate
a rep and did not receive a single response from 70+ students. It is difficult to create a
community in these circumstances. (This is not the case across the board – another UoA in
the same Faculty reported exactly the opposite.)
One initiative that is being trialled is using QR money to appoint a paid postgraduate student
coordinator to work 7 hours a week over 44 weeks, who will be expected to kick start the
community; this has also been achieved via a fee waiver scheme. An issue with employing
people (whether in this kind of student facing role, or in temporary postdoc / research assistant
roles) is the expectation that temporary posts must all go through the Employment Bureau,
and this is holding the appointments up.
12