Scrap the REF?

A new report from think tank UK Day One is calling to replace UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) with a “low-bureaucracy system”.

The REF has been widely criticised for being overly bureaucratic and expensive. But would abolishing the framework altogether be the dream solution?

Stephen Curry, RoRI’s Director of Strategy, told Research Professional News (£):

The REF is an easy target because few would mourn its passing, but I found this provocative report thin and disappointing. It cherry-picks from the evidence base and provides relatively little meat on the bones of its main recommendations.

He added on his blog:

“There are some superficially appealing recommendations for reducing bureaucracy, but these don’t seem to have been thought through properly and leave many questions hanging. The authors propose that QR funding should be allocated in proportion of external research income from private, public and philanthropic sectors and argue this would stimulate collaboration with local industry. Universities already leverage funds from these sectors, but there is no discussion of how much extra stimulus would be provided by this change.”

Stephen added that while the suggestions provide “some superficially appealing recommendations for reducing bureaucracy”, they “don’t seem to have been thought through properly and leave many questions hanging”.

James Wilsdon, RoRI’s Executive Director, argued in Wonkhe that “low-bureaucracy” proposals to replace the REF are based on faulty calculations, and overlook the broader progressive potential of responsible research assessment.

UK Day One misrepresents the costs of the REF and exaggerate the savings that would flow from its abolition. Their headline claim – that this would “save universities £430m” – is the research policy equivalent of “350m a week for the NHS” plastered on a Brexit bus. It’s eye-catching, simplistic and essentially false.

James added:

“For a Labour government, the progressive potential of assessment should be a serious focus for debate, alongside any focus on burden reduction. Of course, we can all agree that the REF should be as cost-effective as possible – as long as it can also deliver on its agreed purposes and goals.

I welcome attempts – including these by UK Day One – to open up a debate about how we approach this task. But let’s not pretend it’s simple – or that cost savings can be generated at a stroke.”

Read the full piece in Wonkhe here.