British universities are producing more in-depth world-leading research than previously thought, according to a large-scale exercise examining the results and real-world impact of 76,000 UK scientists.
The Findings of the Scientific Achievement Framework (REF), examining the work done from 2014-2021, is based on an estimate of nearly 186,000 academic studies, the results of which were used to allocate around £ 2 billion in annual government funding.
According to experts, the results show that Oxford and University College London are likely to receive the largest share of government research grants based on the high share of their departments rated as “world leaders”.
But the overall results showed a small drop in the share of top-class research from the “golden triangle” at the universities of Cambridge, Oxford and London, and showed larger pockets of high-quality research in smaller institutions.
The University of Northumbria was one of the biggest winners, with its research output in areas related to healthcare, such as nursing and engineering, receiving high proportions of the highest marks.
Andrew Wattey, vice chancellor of Northumbria, said increasing his university from 52nd to 28th in the market share of future funding “moves us clearly into a territory that was previously a Russell Group reserve” of universities. as a global force in research. “Northumbria is the first modern university to cross the clear blue water that separates the old and the new parts of the sector, and others follow,” Watay said.
Sign up for the First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7am BST
The two-year peer review found that 41% of the studies presented were worthy of a “leading world” rating of four stars, while 43% received three stars as “internationally excellent”. The 2014 REF rated 22% of surveys as world leaders, but senior leaders said the increase was the result of improved submissions and changes in the way the exercise was conducted.
The 2014 reforms forced universities to include all academic staff with significant research participation in their documents. But they also gave more flexibility in how much research could be presented for each member, including staff whose careers had been disrupted during the period.
For REF in 2014, about 52,000 scientists presented 190,000 works, while in 2021, 76,000 employees presented 185,600 studies, including books and journal articles.
David Sweeney, executive chairman of Research England, said the reforms made it impossible to compare results. “I think we see that research in the UK is still very, very strong and maybe a little stronger. But this is another measure, “he said.
Prof. Dina Birch, who chaired the REF’s Arts and Humanities Review Group, said the differences were wide-ranging. “This is a different exercise and aligning the results of REF 2021 with those of 2014 will be misleading,” she said.
Birch said a “dizzying variety” of research had been sent. “Everything from Anthony Trolop’s fiction, to the nature of the particles that make up the substance of the universe, to the identification of new materials for manufacturing innovation,” she said.
The ranking, calculated by Research Professional News, a specialized publication that tracks funding, found that Oxford’s “market share” of funding is likely to fall from 6.24% in 2014, to 5.7% after the previous REF.
The ranking also showed that the universities of Lancaster and Loughborough have better results than two members of the Russell group from universities with intensive research, with Lancaster being above the Queen’s University in Belfast and the London School of Economics.
Sarah Richardson, editor of Research Professional News, said the REF results are crucial in giving universities access to long-term, more flexible flows of “quality-related” funding. “This is crucial for universities and researchers because it pays for their running costs, such as salaries and early funding of early-stage projects, and helps them plan and invest in research capacity, not just fund research project by project.” , Richardson said.
Joe Grady, secretary general of the Union of Universities and Colleges, said the REF was a waste of staff time and resources, describing it as “emblematic of a research culture obsessed with randomly identifying institutions or departments as winners or losers”.
Add Comment