REF 2021 Code of Practice Development

0:00

Welcome to this,

0:02

the first of two sessions

0:04

that we're having in

0:06

relation to the

0:07

REF 2021 Code

0:10

of Practice.

0:11

My name's Pam Milne, I'm Director

0:13

of HR & OD here

0:15

at the University, and I'm

0:17

accompanied this morning by

0:19

Professor John Rowan, who's

0:21

Vice Principal for Research

0:23

and I'll be handing over very

0:25

shortly to John to do

0:27

the bulk of the presentation this

0:29

morning.

0:30

But, just by way of

0:32

introduction, I'm

0:34

actually chairing the

0:36

committee that's responsible

0:38

for the formulation

0:40

of the Code of Practice, and

0:43

just as other universities

0:45

up and down the country are doing,

0:47

we've been working on the

0:48

draft, which I hope you've all now

0:50

had an opportunity

0:52

to look at and

0:54

our responsibility,

0:56

I guess, in,

0:59

at the high level

1:01

is to draw up a Code of

1:03

Practice that frames

1:05

the decision making process that

1:07

we will go through here at

1:09

the University of Dundee in

1:11

relation to the REF

1:13

2021.

1:15

And that has to, those processes

1:17

and procedures that we, we we

1:19

have drawn up must

1:22

adhere to the context

1:25

of the principles of equality,

1:27

diversity and inclusion.

1:29

And that's been at the forefront

1:32

of our minds when we've been

1:33

formulating the code, that

1:36

you will, as I say, all have seen,

1:38

but this is our

1:40

whole community's opportunity

1:43

to look at the code, to

1:46

give comment on it, to

1:48

make suggestions on it or

1:50

indeed to, to say if you

1:52

feel it doesn't abide by

1:54

the rules that we're

1:56

trying to follow in relation to,

1:58

as I say, equality, diversity,

2:00

inclusion.

2:02

So without further

2:04

ado, and I'll pass over to,

2:06

to John, who has a short

2:08

presentation to go through this

2:10

morning.

2:12

Good morning, everybody.

2:13

Thank you, Pam. I think that was

2:14

actually very comprehensive.

2:16

In many respects, the presentation

2:19

that we have

2:22

is relatively

2:24

light, technically, but contains

2:26

some important information around

2:28

particular nuances of,

2:30

of the REF rules of engagement

2:32

so I don't want to

2:34

spend a lot of time going through

2:36

long slides, but I'm very

2:38

grateful to Clive Randall, our

2:40

research policy manager,

2:42

for producing the bulk of these

2:44

slides.

2:45

I don't want to go through too much

2:46

in detail and just talk at you.

2:48

The purpose of these sessions is

2:50

very much as part of our

2:52

communication and consultation

2:53

exercise, to try and invite

2:55

questions or observations

2:57

or clarifications or indeed

2:59

challenges from our academic

3:01

and University community more

3:02

broadly.

3:04

So I want to probably

3:06

pass through these slides really

3:07

rather, rather quickly, in

3:09

order that would free up some time

3:11

for discussion.

3:12

So if I'm going too fast,

3:14

please stop me.

3:16

If I'm going too slow, wave

3:18

vigorously, and I'll try and speed

3:19

up, OK?

3:21

So really, the kind of framing

3:23

of what I'm going to say today

3:25

is about the Code of Practice.

3:27

I think there's an important issue

3:28

around the submission of staff,

3:30

there are some important issues

3:33

technically around outputs,

3:34

and this is very much coming

3:36

at us from an equality,

3:38

diversity and inclusion perspective

3:41

to make sure that our processes are

3:43

as transparent and as fair

3:45

and as reasonable as they possibly

3:47

can be. So we enter this process

3:49

institutionally with an open mind

3:52

and I think a kind of clear

3:53

conscience, and our objective is to

3:54

try go through this as effectively

3:57

as we can, in the institutional

3:59

interest, but without

4:01

in any sense there have been any

4:02

collateral damage along the way.

4:03

So it's very much

4:06

a process for ourselves, for the

4:07

entire University community.

4:09

And then I'll finish on, on the

4:11

timescale towards the end.

4:12

But just for everybody's sake,

4:14

as we know, the REF has been

4:16

going in its various manifestations

4:18

for nearly 30 years.

4:20

It's about showing public

4:22

accountability of financial

4:24

investment in research.

4:25

It's about producing national

4:28

institutional yardsticks that

4:29

compare performance.

4:30

And it's also about,

4:33

through the Scottish Funding

4:34

Council's dual support mechanism, a

4:36

way to allocate research

4:38

excellence grants that underpins

4:40

research infrastructure.

4:41

So it's a really important process.

4:43

It brings into the institution,

4:45

alone, from REF outcomes,

4:48

£11.3 million pounds per year,

4:49

into the University and naturally,

4:53

institutionally, we want to raise

4:55

our performance because that means

4:56

for more resources to come in,

4:58

but equally, we need to do that in

4:59

an appropriate and proportionate

5:01

way.

5:02

So we'll just go through some of

5:03

these ideas themselves.

5:05

Now Pam gave a very elegant

5:07

and brief description of what we're

5:08

trying to do through the Code of

5:09

Practice, but it's very much about

5:11

trying to ensure that documents

5:13

develop and document and apply

5:15

a Code of Practice to be fair

5:17

and transparent.

5:18

It's, there's a really critical

5:20

thing about who goes in, which is

5:22

this notion of Category A staff,

5:24

it's quite a technical definition

5:25

but we'll come to that in a minute.

5:27

It's also important to understand

5:29

who qualifies as being an

5:31

independent researcher, and

5:33

therefore he or she can be part

5:35

of the REF process.

5:37

There's issues around the selection

5:38

of outputs, making sure that,

5:40

that colleagues feel appropriately

5:42

valued in the process and that their

5:44

work is being appropriately

5:45

represented in the

5:47

pool of outputs that are, being

5:49

coming from any individual unit.

5:51

And it's about ensuring that we've

5:53

got transparency in all of

5:54

our processes, around

5:57

the roles and the responsibilities

5:59

of our committees and groups.

6:00

And should there be an issue of

6:02

process, we want

6:04

to ensure that our Code of Practice

6:05

is sufficiently robust,

6:07

that we can have

6:10

an exploration and try and

6:11

resolve any issues without

6:13

it becoming too traumatic or too

6:16

extended in terms of process.

6:19

In terms of the submission of staff,

6:22

I think it's really important, and

6:24

I think all of you who are here know

6:26

this, the rules of the game have

6:27

changed a little bit from the last

6:28

time.

6:29

In this

6:31

instance, the REF rules allow us

6:33

to, to do one of two things.

6:35

Either define

6:37

in some quality,

6:39

quantitative way

6:41

what constitutes a substantive

6:42

contribution to research,

6:44

or to say that all researchers

6:47

who have research within their

6:48

contracts, be it

6:50

teaching in research or research

6:52

only, all of those staff

6:54

are, must be included

6:56

and it's that 100%

6:59

submission that we've gone for

7:00

within the University of Dundee.

7:03

Basically, in terms of qualifying

7:05

as having a significant

7:06

responsibility for research, which

7:07

makes you a category A member of

7:09

staff, that means you've got

7:11

independent research as part of

7:13

your, your day job.

7:15

As I say that's T and R and

7:17

R.

7:18

Typically that would mean you have

7:19

to have a 0.2

7:21

full time equivalent or larger.

7:23

And critically, from a census

7:25

perspective, that individual,

7:27

he or she, needs to be on the

7:28

payroll

7:31

at the census date of the 31st of

7:32

July 2020.

7:35

So there's other technical issues

7:36

there and around but for research

7:38

only staff, the important thing is

7:40

that from a REF perspective,

7:42

you meet the definition of an

7:43

independent researcher.

7:44

And just looking around our room

7:46

today, we've got colleagues from

7:48

Science and Engineering, and from

7:49

Social Sciences, and we know we've

7:51

got a very small number of, of

7:53

independent researchers who are

7:55

either senior research fellows or

7:57

research fellows within those

7:58

respective schools so I

8:00

think the issue of independence

8:02

is going to be relatively minor

8:04

as we'll unpack in just a few

8:06

minutes.

8:07

So in practise, that means that

8:09

all teaching and research staff are

8:11

in.

8:12

If you're R and you've got

8:13

independent status, then you

8:15

would similarly be in.

8:17

And that means if you are

8:19

self-directed, rather than

8:21

carrying out work for an individual,

8:23

you would be in.

8:24

So if you're, for example, a postdoc

8:26

and you're working on a research

8:28

council grant for three years,

8:30

then you're really working to

8:32

a principal investigator or

8:34

a, and consequently, that

8:36

would not be independent status so

8:38

they would just be not returned

8:40

as a full time member of staff,

8:42

but if you were, for example, people

8:44

like the Senior

8:46

Research Fellows, the Wellcome Trust

8:48

Fellows that we have in Life

8:48

Sciences and Medicine then they

8:50

are carrying out substantive

8:52

programmes of research under their

8:53

own steam, and they would in

8:55

turn qualify.

8:56

So I can come back to that,

8:59

if it's appropriate, we've got

9:00

a kind of extended

9:02

set of criteria which

9:04

equate to indicators of

9:06

independence, and this particular

9:08

slide just explains, as it does in

9:10

the code the research

9:12

assistants, for example, would not

9:13

be included.

9:15

Okay?

9:16

So we can come back to that if it's

9:17

appropriate, but otherwise I'm going

9:19

to move on.

9:20

Similarly, the, the

9:23

the so-called Category C staff

9:25

who are those who again have

9:27

substantive contracts outside of the

9:29

university but work within our

9:30

research community or affiliated to

9:32

our research community.

9:33

And historically that was typically

9:35

those who were, for example, working

9:37

in the NHS, but they would have

9:39

either an honorary contract

9:42

with the University or they'd be

9:42

working within our research

9:44

community.

9:45

They are not this time returned

9:47

into REF 2021,

9:50

and again, we can come back to that

9:51

if it's appropriate.

9:53

So we really only now have one

9:55

substantive category of staff,

9:56

Category A, who all in,

9:59

or Category C who are not

10:01

in. B and D are,

10:03

don't exist any longer, okay?

10:05

But we haven't reverted

10:07

C to a B, I know it sounds kind of

10:09

complicated and convoluted, but

10:11

that's the way it is.

10:13

In terms of outputs,

10:17

again, here the definition

10:19

of being able to claim

10:21

authorship of an output, a paper

10:24

or a book chapter

10:26

or artefact that you

10:28

create is a piece of art practice

10:30

or, for example,

10:32

from our Arts and Design

10:34

colleagues, taking part

10:36

in or curating a significant

10:39

exhibition or a portfolio of work

10:41

around an exhibition.

10:42

Those things qualify as outputs,

10:44

and to be able to claim that, you

10:46

have to demonstrate that you've had

10:47

a substantive contribution in the

10:49

production of that output.

10:52

And then in terms of the outputs

10:54

that are going in, it equates

10:56

to those staff who are in contract

10:57

and with us at the census date of

11:00

31st of July.

11:01

But also, we can claim the outputs

11:03

of staff who were with us

11:05

since 2014 but have subsequently

11:07

left, or indeed

11:09

contracts who were with us up until

11:11

some point where they were on a

11:12

Category A research T and R

11:14

contract, for example, and then

11:16

they switched contracts into another

11:18

domain, for example, into T and S

11:20

or into another substantive

11:22

role within the University, but no

11:24

longer with explicit

11:26

research within their title.

11:29

The rules of REF 2021

11:31

are different again from last time.

11:33

Last time we had two of four outputs

11:34

per person.

11:35

This time it's an average of two and

11:37

a half.

11:38

But to be in,

11:40

you need to have one

11:43

and you can return a maximum of

11:45

five.

11:45

So this time it's much less

11:47

about the individual and

11:49

his or her profile and much

11:51

more about the pool of outputs that

11:53

a unit of assessment can brigade

11:55

together.

11:56

And obviously, the

11:58

rules of the game being such as they

11:59

are, and the, and the weighting

12:01

that we see to 4* work

12:03

relative to 3* work.

12:05

The knowledge that SFC will only

12:07

fund 3 and 4*

12:09

work means that the rules of

12:11

the game are shifting as left

12:13

towards an emphasis upon

12:15

4*.

12:16

Now that naturally, because

12:18

of this two and a half average

12:20

per unit of assessment,

12:22

well,

12:24

inevitably, favour the larger groups

12:26

who've got more choice about

12:28

different kind of paper combinations

12:29

that they can produce, but

12:31

also for us, it means that we've got

12:33

to emphasise the quality work

12:35

and try and accentuate or maximise

12:38

the top end of our distribution

12:41

and in a sense, depersonalise it

12:43

from the individuals.

12:44

So it's really about how the

12:46

unit of assessment can perform as a

12:48

group as a whole, rather

12:50

than about at the level of the

12:51

individual.

12:53

But it is important to say that

12:56

we need to be mindful,

12:58

even though the rules of the game

12:59

have changed and it's a minimum of

13:01

one paper that's required.

13:03

This time we still acknowledge

13:05

that over the course of a REF

13:07

period from 2014,

13:11

January 20

13:13

14, up to

13:15

the close of the census in July

13:17

2020, it is possible

13:19

that colleagues have had challenges

13:21

in their research times.

13:24

They could've had interruptions, for

13:25

example, because they had a

13:27

significant period of time on

13:28

maternity, or they could have

13:30

other significant disruption within

13:32

their families, they could have been

13:33

off themselves due to some form

13:35

of illness or

13:38

a number of different factors which

13:40

could be considered to be individual

13:42

circumstances.

13:43

And so in the

13:45

Code of Practice, we explain

13:47

that this time the requirement

13:49

or the invitation

13:51

is for colleagues themselves

13:53

to declare their

13:55

individual circumstances and

13:57

to consider whether

13:59

those circumstances have compromised

14:01

their work sufficiently, that some

14:03

sort of allowance should be made

14:05

in terms of their, their profile.

14:08

Now the nature of the

14:10

stern, the stern

14:12

review requirements that everybody

14:14

put in a minimum of one and an

14:16

average of two and a half was to try

14:17

and create a bit more

14:19

flexibility and resilience

14:22

within that pool of outputs.

14:24

So for the most part, it's assuming

14:25

that if you've had a minor

14:28

amount of time off, that

14:30

shouldn't of a compromise your

14:31

ability to produce one

14:33

substantive output as a minimum.

14:35

But it may have affected your

14:37

ability to produce more than one.

14:39

And that's something that Pam's

14:41

committee as convenor may

14:43

wish to take a view

14:45

on.

14:46

And of course, there's the

14:48

circumstances that happen and effect

14:50

the individual.

14:51

But again, because of the nature of

14:52

our University and our structure, we

14:54

have a number of relatively small

14:56

units, and in a small

14:58

unit, one can imagine a situation

15:00

where multiple individuals

15:02

have had individual circumstances,

15:05

which cumulatively have

15:07

amounted to some sort of

15:09

compromise to the,

15:11

to the, to the research time

15:13

and the quality of the research time

15:15

that that group of academics

15:17

have had.

15:18

And again, there's the possibility

15:20

to invite

15:22

the Equality and Diversity Committee

15:24

to look, or the Individual

15:25

Circumstances Committee to look at

15:26

those, that case,

15:28

and take a view as to whether some

15:30

sort of dispensation, some sort of

15:32

allowance for mitigation can

15:34

be made.

15:34

Now again, we can return to that;

15:36

it's quite a complicated area, but

15:38

the important point to

15:40

remember is that there's those two

15:41

scales Individual Circumstances

15:44

and then that which is happening

15:46

at the unit of assessment group

15:48

level.

15:51

And just that the final point there,

15:53

one of the ways in which

15:55

we can see quite clearly

15:57

how the REF 2021

15:59

rules are seeking to, in a sense,

16:01

depersonalise it and make it more

16:03

about the unit of assessment

16:05

and the University is that we don't,

16:06

in fact, will not see the list of

16:09

staff submitted published

16:11

at the end of the exercise

16:13

within the final

16:15

REF production.

16:16

OK, so we know at a

16:18

university level how many members of

16:19

staff were in, those members of

16:21

staff who put forward a series of

16:22

papers into the output pool,

16:24

that the unit of assessment

16:25

coordinators and the staff

16:27

will discuss and decide

16:29

what is the best output profile that

16:31

they can, they can produce, and

16:33

that will be submitted into the REF,

16:35

but it would not be a direct tie

16:36

back into how many staff

16:38

submitted how many papers,

16:40

unless someone chose to kind

16:42

of forensically crawl over the

16:44

outputs, which will eventually

16:46

be, be published within

16:48

the feedback that comes out of REF

16:50

itself.

16:53

And so the Code of Practice has the

16:55

process, and this is part of our

16:57

consultation.

16:59

We have this open

17:01

at the moment.

17:02

The draft itself was developed by

17:04

our Equality, Diversity and

17:06

Inclusion Group, and Clive and

17:07

Adjit, and Pam's the convenor and

17:09

Nicky Miller here is the secretary

17:11

to, to that committee.

17:13

There is a process in terms

17:15

of our governance arrangements which

17:17

says after the consultation

17:20

closes and we've got feedback from

17:21

our community and maybe more of it

17:23

will be written rather than in

17:24

person.

17:26

When the feedback closes on the 6th

17:27

of May, we'll try and update

17:29

that and incorporate it into the

17:31

working document.

17:32

And then that will be shared with

17:34

PODCO, which is a subcommittee

17:36

of Court on the 20th of May

17:38

and then academically at Senate

17:40

on 22nd of May.

17:42

Signed off by UEG,

17:44

hopefully, on the 7th of June

17:47

and submitted to SFC

17:49

on, on the 5th of June and then

17:50

submitted to SFC on the 7th of June.

17:53

And then depending on how well

17:55

it lands with SFC and through the

17:57

advice they receive from

17:58

the main

18:00

Equality and Diversity Advisory

18:02

Panel (EDAP), we'll either get

18:04

feedback that says yes, it's

18:05

approved or why don't you change

18:07

this aspect of it

18:09

from the initial submission, there's

18:10

two further possibilities

18:12

for review dates.

18:14

And then all codes have been

18:16

approved, and we're confident

18:18

our code

18:20

will be approved, will be published

18:22

in December 2019.

18:26

The document tries to cut

18:28

through some of the text by using

18:30

graphics.

18:31

This is just to try and show you the

18:33

arrangement of decision making with

18:34

respect to individual circumstances,

18:37

unit of assessment circumstances,

18:40

to understand which, within

18:42

the layer of communities that we

18:44

have servicing the REF, would be

18:45

dealing with particular issues.

18:47

There's an appeals process,

18:49

which has two stages, an informal

18:51

and then a formal.

18:53

And again, I hope that we can talk

18:55

about that if there's any

18:56

clarification colleagues require.

18:58

But I think it's quite a nice

19:00

diagram that summarises

19:02

and synthesises that.

19:04

So final slide in terms of

19:05

timetable,

19:08

the kind of magic date that we're

19:10

all charging towards

19:13

is the 27th of November

19:15

2020, which is the closing

19:17

date for submissions.

19:19

In the spirit of great organisation,

19:22

Clive's determined that we should be

19:23

submitting our documentation

19:25

several weeks in advance because

19:26

there's historically always a

19:28

massive logjam in

19:30

the final frantic days,

19:32

weeks and days before that

19:33

submission.

19:34

But we can work back and you can see

19:36

that there's a number of milestones

19:38

along the way that tell us that

19:39

we're preparing appropriately

19:43

and I hope that you as individuals

19:45

who are part of that process and

19:47

those of you who are managing and

19:48

supporting the process can

19:50

agree that we've got

19:52

a common purpose here and through

19:54

that common purpose we try and

19:56

advance the University's case for

19:58

academic excellence and reputation

20:01

and recognition in the form of

20:04

the Research Excellence Grant, which

20:05

is a fundamental part of the

20:07

lifeblood of our research

20:08

economy. So that's all I

20:10

want to say at this stage,

20:12

I hope that's reasonably clear.