Impact of Stern REF review assessed

August 4, 2016

Re “Stern aims for lower REF workload, more ‘game-changing’ research” (28 July). As someone doing good research, this is how I read the recommendations of Lord Stern’s Review of the UK’s Research Excellence Framework: let’s not make life difficult for underperformers, and, above all else, let’s ensure that successful academics don’t dare move and “rent-seek” (ie, expect a decent wage). More money for administrators and vice-chancellors.

Even more than Brexit, this is a wake-up call for all serious researchers to get out of the UK as soon as possible.

poli1
Via timeshighereducation.com

It seems to me there are some distinct and unexamined biases in the report: Stern is thinking from the perspective of employers, rather than employees (ie, researchers, who come across as all rather difficult); concentrates on the sciences rather than the humanities (hence the madness of focusing on the date a publication is contracted); and is focused on bigger and more established universities/departments rather than those with “pockets of excellence”. These recommendations could substantially alter relations between research, researchers and universities.

a.mcrae_261090
Via timeshighereducation.com

Re “Will REF ‘portability’ plans hobble early career academics?” (30 July).

The problem with the Stern review is that the group doing it is packed with “the good and the great” and those in high administrative positions. The voice of those affected is hardly heard. Its “Proposal 3” stops game-playing by individuals (who are clearly “rent seekers”) but just replaces this with “rent grabbers” (ie, institutions). It is hardly unexpected that a committee packed with vice-chancellors would want to capture the rents associated with those pesky faculty wanting to be rewarded for their work. And who is more easily exploited than those at the bottom of the food chain? Rest assured that those failing to meet their REF quota will find themselves on the breadline or pushed into teaching positions so that they do not count. Under the old rules, at least they could move someplace else.

T.Devinney_255157
Via timeshighereducation.com


Send to

Letters should be sent to: THE.Letters@tesglobal.com
Letters for publication in Times Higher Education should arrive by 9am Monday.
View terms and conditions.

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Most Commented

Monster behind man at desk

Despite all that’s been done to improve doctoral study, horror stories keep coming. Here three students relate PhD nightmares while two academics advise on how to ensure a successful supervision

Sir Christopher Snowden, former Universities UK president, attacks ratings in wake of Southampton’s bronze award

opinion illustration

Eliminating cheating services, even if it were possible, would do nothing to address students’ and universities’ lack of interest in learning, says Stuart Macdonald

Female professor

New data show proportion of professors who are women has declined at some institutions

celebrate, cheer, tef results

Emilie Murphy calls on those who challenged the teaching excellence framework methodology in the past to stop sharing their university ratings with pride