Towards REF 2020
Wednesday 28 October 2015
IWM Duxford
Questions for Breakout Groups
Breakout groups are not expected to stick closely to the questions, which are
provided as prompts only, but are encouraged to discuss openly, frankly and widely
within the parameters of each session. Where groups discuss REF 2014 submissions
or outcomes they should focus on the areas represented in their groups.
Groups are encouraged to:
 look for common themes and overarching issues as well as UoA specific
issues
 look for opportunities to volunteer innovative, creative approaches to the
challenges they identify.
Morning session: assessing and critiquing the REF 2014 submission (60 minutes)






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?
Afternoon session: how do we enable a good REF submission next time? (60
minutes)
Each breakout group is asked to focus (and report back) on TWO of the ‘headers’ below (to
be allocated in advance), but should feel free to discuss any particularly pressing issues
from the other questions.
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?
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?
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?
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?