‘Beware trade-offs’ of removing REF funding for 3* outputs

Eliminating funding for 3* research in the next Research Excellence Framework (REF) would benefit Russell Group institutions by about £50 million a year, suggests modelling into how potential changes to funding formulas may play out.

Announcing revised weightings for outputs and environment for REF 2029, Research England’s chief executive Jessica Corner recently confirmed the exercise is reviewing the formula used to allocate about £2 billion a year in quality-related (QR) block grants to universities each year. Currently four times as much funding is awarded to a single “world-leading” 4* output as to a 3* one.

With ministers urging institutions to sharpen their research focus and spend resources only in areas of relative strength, there are concerns this review could lead to a downgrading for “internationally excellent” 3* research or the complete withdrawal of funding for this category, echoing the removal of funding for 2* funding in REF 2014.

“If the government truly commits to rewarding only the very best research a move towards funding for only 4* outputs is probably inevitable,” said Diana Beech, director of the Finsbury Institute, a public policy research unit at City St George’s University of London.

That shift would hugely benefit research-intensive universities in REF 2029, according to analysis conducted by Jon Collett, senior innovation and impact manager at the University of Nottingham’s Faculty of Engineering who has previous modelled the financial value of a 4* impact statement.

According to Collett, institutions within the 24-strong group would collectively see their annual mainstream QR funding allowance rise from £814.4 million annually to £864.6 million based on 2021 results. Non-Russell Group institutions would see their share of the £1.26 billion annual QR pot fall from £450.9 million to £400.6 million if funding for 3* research was removed.

Shifting from a 4:1 ratio to a 5:1 ratio would lead to an £8 million transfer in QR funds between the two groups, said Collett who noted the recent decision to increase the weighting of outputs to 55 per cent and reduce environment to 20 per cent would result in a £5 million gain by Russell Group institutions, assuming similar results to the 2021 exercise.

Separate analysis by Simon Kerridge, a research consultant and honorary staff member at University of Kent, found 47 universities and research institutes would be better off under a switch to funding for only 4* research, though only one (Roehampton University) of these is a multidisciplinary post-1992 university.

Excluding specialist institutions, the biggest financial winner from this switch would be Imperial College London whose core QR funding of £52.2 million would increase by 19.1 per cent to £62 million followed by the London School of Economics (whose QR share would increase 16.2 per cent, up from £12.5 million to £14.5 million), then the universities of Cambridge (a 14.8 per cent rise, or £12 million extra), Oxford (14.3 per cent, or £12 million) and Bristol (also 14.3 per cent, or £5.8 million more).

While this amended formula might align with the recent post-16 education White Paper’s call for a “more focused volume of research, delivered with higher-quality” and “fewer broad generalist providers and more specialists”, it is important to note the trade-offs, said City St George’s Beech.

“It would dramatically benefit the already high-performing universities and make it harder for emerging research institutions to compete by entrenching REF hierarchies,” she explained.

While the government might want to “reward hyper-specialisation” by universities, such a shift would threaten disciplinary diversity, continued Beech. “It would put a dampener on fields where 4* outputs are harder to achieve, possibly in the arts and humanities,” she added.

Shifting the formula towards rewarding 4* research also risked damaging the talent pipeline given many researchers might not be expected to produce “world-leading” research early in their career, added Beech.

“It would skew the system to the advantage of senior academics. We need an element of hedging our bets and thinking about the people involved in research– winners come from all sorts of places so everyone in the system needs a fair shot at success. The REF shouldn’t just be designed around ‘world-class’ researchers,” she added.

Robert Van de Noort, vice-chancellor of the University of Reading, said any changes should be carefully scrutinised.

“In the short-term this might generate efficiencies but there is a question about whether this is right for the longer term for supporting places where real innovation comes from,” he explained.

Given many outstanding impact case studies related to 3* research, a sole focus on 4* star research might not be wise, he added. “Four-star research is often at the very sharp end of a discipline and very fundamental but this might not suit impact which usually relies on more applied work,” said van de Noort.

“Before we make any decisions we need to think really hard about these things.”

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com