REF Awayday – Wednesday 28 October 2015 – Feedback Survey



1.
Overall, how useful was the event to you in your role?




2.
22 responses received
46 delegates attended including RW, TB, IW, JS (+ Catriona= 47)
42 potential respondents = 52.38% response rate
15 people (68.2%) said it was very useful
5 people (22.7%) said it was useful
0 people said it was not useful
2 people (9.1%) said it was not at all useful
Free text comments: (20 responses)
Respondents noted that the awayday was ‘Well organised and very interesting’. The ‘Talks
were excellent and the group work was well thought out.’ ‘It was well planned and there was
a good balance between presentations and group.’ People thought that it was ‘A great venue
with parking’, but others felt that it was ‘difficult to get to without a car’. One person said, ‘I
found the REF away day one of the best research REF days I have attended during my years
at ARU since 1994! It was useful, timely, and we were given a choice of dates and a lead in
to the event. The structure was ideal in one way as we had a chance to work with colleagues
in the same Faculty. I wondered if we could have covered both topics in one slightly longer
session in Faculty/Subject specific groups, and then addressed something different in cross
Faculty/Subject groups as that is always a useful learning experience. However, I think it was
a very satisfying, useful, well lead, well organised and constructive day.’ Another person said
it was ‘very well organised, thank you. Should have happened in the Spring!’ and someone
else felt that ‘This would have been even more useful about a year ago’. However, it was ‘an
excellent day’ and ‘the tone was open and the analysis good’.
3.
What did you find the most useful aspect of the Awayday? (22 responses)
People appreciated ‘clear direction about what to talk about in small groups, and the excellent
preparation of the moderators’ and several delegates highlighted the RAND presentation on
impact as being very helpful. The opportunity to meet new colleagues was appreciated, as
well as the positive approach and feel. A sense of clarity and collective purpose was
mentioned and the atmosphere was ‘calm, sensible and non-sensorious’. The ‘open, honest
and strategic consideration’ was noted and Duxford was considered to be an ‘excellent venue
for break-out thinking’. It was ‘useful to hear perspectives from a wide range of disciplines’.
4.
What did you find the least useful aspect of the Awayday? (16 responses)
In this section, many people noted that it was ‘all good’, or ‘hard to be critical’, or ‘nothing
comes to mind’. Of those who did mention something specific, a couple of delegates found
the talk on Open Access difficult to hear. One person would have preferred ‘more mixing of
the disciplines rather than being grouped together. The grouping stifled some discussion.’
Another person felt that senior members of staff owned the conversation in the discussion
groups.
5.
What one thing will you do (differently) as a result of the Awayday? (21 responses)
Six people mentioned that they would be prioritising impact through an audit, or discussions,
or the introduction of impact plans. Four people said that they would be encouraging
submission to ARRO and preparing for the open access requirements. Retention strategy
was also mentioned as was working with convenors and finding out about the REF Strategy
Group, who is on it and how it feeds back to REF convenors and deputy convenors.
6.
Do you have any initial comments about the Draft Internal Timetable included in the
pack? (18 responses)
The vast majority of respondents felt that the timetable was reasonable, realistic, clear and
helpful. One person noted that the timing and manner of the involvement of external reviewers
remained to be resolved and another felt that although they were the potential convenor for
one UoA, their energies might be better used to support another UoA.
7.
Do you have any further comments on any aspect of the Awayday? (14 responses)
Comments ranged from ‘really positive and felt like we finally have a sense of direction’,
‘informative and enjoyable’ and ‘well organised and very useful event’, to the importance
reporting back to delegates on the findings/outcomes of discussions and a request to have
the minutes of the REF Strategy Group circulated more widely. Innovative ways of using QR
were raised at the Awayday and it would be useful to collate these. One person suggested
that HoDs needed to be engaged to maximise the benefit for REF 2020. One delegate wanted
microphones for the speakers and larger font on the name badges.
8.
When we meet again (as we plan to do in about a year’s time) what do you think the
main focus of that event should be? (20 responses)
10 respondents mentioned impact in this section.
Other suggestions were:













Evidence collection
Environment
Invite HR person who attended Vitae Conference to talk about support for ECRs
Consolidate and maximise research outputs
Sharing progress – successes and challenges
How can we maximise the research power of each UoA
How to score REF outputs – workshop with REF 2014 reviewers from each UoA
Strategic direction
Support on REF paperwork planning
Creation and resourcing of individual/group/departmental research action plans
External speaker for open access
Meet in small groups within subject areas and also a cross disciplinary small group
Consult informally with Tim Brooks and Roderick Watkins on the day about specific
issues
 Invite HoD, Convenor and 1 or 2 research active people from each UoA to improve
ownership and understanding
 Create material that can be diffused to colleagues