dr tim horne, head of the research excellence unit, coventry university

Establishing research strategies and priorities

Dr Tim Horne

Head, Research Excellence Unit

Coventry University

(At least) two key questions

• What does the research landscape look like for universities?

• If we assume REF is a ‘given’, how can we optimise submissions?

• and note the breakout sessions

My landscape - the context of Coventry

• ‘Modern’ university, i.e. post-92

• Improvements driven by focus on L+T, and business engagement

• Highest ranked modern university in Guardian and Sunday Times

• 2015 THE University of the year

• REF2014 strategy focussed on GPA

• 2014 launch of ‘Excellence with Impact’, £150M research strategy

• As a result, research is now a major focus

• building on existing strengths, and developing new areas

Preparing for the future research landscape

• Some recent ‘events’ on the research landscape:

• Dowling review of Business-University research collaborations

• Wilsden’s ‘Metric Tide’

• Nurse’s ‘Ensuring a successful UK research endeavour’

• Stern review

• UK Higher Education and Research Bill

• Throw in OA requirements, and it adds up to plenty to think about

when scenario planning

• And then to cap it all, the very unexpected European exit

But enough about England’s football team

Future landscape – a bit Churchillian?

• A riddle, wrapped inside a mystery, inside an enigma (said by

Churchill of Russia)

• Or perhaps even Rumsfeldian:

• there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We

also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there

are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown

unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know

• However, let’s focus on the ‘knowns’, or at least what we know

‘should’ or ‘will’ happen

Should: two minute guide to the Nurse review

• Recommendations and comments include:

• Haldane principle – allocation of resources by experts

• ‘Research produces knowledge that enhances our culture and

civilisation, and contributes to the public good’

• Peer review essential to funding decisions (cf Metric Tide)

• Fund the best research wherever it is found

• (compare 2014 QR allocation with 2008)

• Proportionate use of ‘societal impact’

• Enhance strategic relationship between Innovate UK and the

Research Councils

• Create Research UK, headed by ‘highly distinguished scientist’,

and maintain the individual Research Councils

Will: research landscape: what’s planned?

• 2016/17 grant letter from BIS to HEFCE:

• ‘commitment to the dual support system’, so QR stays

• the next REF exercise…should be completed by the end of

2021

• HEIF for business – university (research) links maintained, at

least for now

Will: research landscape: what’s planned?

• Higher Education and Research Bill:

• Will enact some of the recommendations of the Nurse review, and

will create UK Research and Innovation

• UKRI = RCUK + Innovate UK + HEFCE research functions

• And then came Brexit – new PM, new Government, which may or

may not change things

Will: REF, and preparations for it

• REF will be completed by the end of 2021

• Speculation, but save the date: Friday 27th November 2020!

• A rapid rewrite if the earlier speakers have said things different but:

• Broadly speaking similar to REF2014

• Maybe changes to the 4 outputs per person rule?

• Maybe impact 25%, REF3A gone to a revised ‘environment’

• Maybe softening of the tight link between FTEs and number of case

studies to stop unintended consequences

Careers at risk after case studies ‘game

playing’, REF study suggests

So, maybe under 4½ years to the next REF

• Much has been said about impact, but outputs will remain the

biggest scoring component – so how do we improve these?

• Perhaps, like me you have academic colleagues asking

• ‘How do I write a good paper’?

• With apologies for stating the obvious, I usually say to them:

• start with original, significant, rigorous – in the initial idea

• a 1* idea will never turn into a 4* paper

• However, if colleagues have 4* research, it’s still possible to turn it

into a 3*, or worse paper

• Taken from a talk by a REF panel member, how to score well:

Outputs: how to achieve – from a REF panellist

• 4* is genuinely original

• Use the abstract and introduction to lay out the context

• Make clear what’s new, and its academic significance

• Show that the methodology/approach leads to rigour

• Draw clear conclusions, as per abstract/introduction

• And do not, repeat not, tell the reader what to think:

• this is world-leading, ground-breaking or whatever

• On the other hand…

Outputs: how to underachieve

• This work follows on from our previous paper…

• So, this one isn’t original then

• Details of the experiment/methodology will be described in…

• so this paper isn’t rigorous, or significant

• Submit two papers with a similar title or content for the same

person

• chances are, one isn’t ‘original’

• Submit reviews – in many cases not ‘original’ research

So, need to start working with colleagues now

• If you are an academic, you’ll have already been planning your

research for the next few years - idea > funding > output

• won’t you?

• If you’re a research manager, do all your academic colleagues

already know and understand all that’s been said today?

• if not, what’s your plan to inform?

• One final slide on impact:

Impact in the REF

• Clear line: 2* research > non-academic benefit > we have evidence

• Dissemination is not impact – where’s the evidence of change?

• Be honest and realistic, and do not overclaim

• We all, or nearly all, did well last time

• Assume next time will be tougher

Thank you for staying to the end!

tim.horne@coventry.ac.uk

07974 98 40 18

@timjhorne