Gender-critical scholar complains over REF panel ‘bias’ fears

The selection of a professor who has described gender-critical feminism as “not a legitimate alternative viewpoint” to a Research Excellence Framework (REF) subpanel could have a “chilling effect” on the discipline and may undermine the integrity of the exercise, an academic has argued.

One of the UK’s most high-profile trans scholars, Sophie Grace Chappell, professor of philosophy at the Open University (OU), is a highly acclaimed expert on ethics, ancient philosophy and aesthetics and, since 2021, has served as executive editor of The Philosophical Quarterly.

However, Chappell’s outspoken comments on transgender issues have led Jon Pike, also an OU philosophy professor, to question her appointment to the REF 2029 subpanel for philosophy, claiming Chappell’s presence may dissuade departments from submitting gender-critical studies to the exercise which determines how £2 billion a year in quality-related (QR) funding is allocated to universities.

Pike, whose research has argued that transgender women should not compete in professional women’s sport, told Times Higher Education that Chappell’s criticism of the OU’s Gender Critical Research Network (OUGCRN) he co-founded in 2021 raised concerns about whether the philosophy panel would assess all kinds of outputs on their merits, regardless of their political or ideological position.

In one tweet sent at the time, Chappell stated that: “‘Gender critical’ is not a legitimate alternative viewpoint. It is not a reasonable option in the supermarket of ideas. It is a cult of cruelty and exclusion.”

Referring to the OUGCRN, Chappell added: “Their position is a logical analogue of anti-semitism & of homophobia...We shd respond to them as respond to anti-semites and homophobes.”

“The GC view is a tissue of mistakes, misconceptions & misunderstandings, some of them deliberate, many of them bad-faith; combined with a willingness to stereotype, scaremonger, rumour-monger, demonise & interpret with a studied lack of charity,” Chappell continued.

More recently, Chappell’s repost in November 2025 of a cartoon likening the introduction of gene screening by the International Olympics Committee to Nazi policy at the 1936 Berlin Olympics also raised questions about her ability to judge gender-critical research in a fair manner, Pike argued.

Pike has now submitted a formal complaint to UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), whose research council, Research England, manages the REF, about what he views as a conflict of interest that may undermine fair assessment. UKRI said any complaints would be considered “in line with procedure” and “handled in confidence”.

“Obviously, it is uncomfortable for me to raise a complaint against a colleague at my own university but Professor Chappell’s appointment raises real and general concerns about the operation of REF 29,” said Pike.

Chappell’s frequent denunciations of gender-critical feminism – a position recognised as a protected belief since 2022 following the Maya Forstater appeal court ruling – raised questions over “whether these comments are compatible with impartial assessment”, Pike continued.

“My complaint poses a question to UKRI, for which, I think, we need a public answer: What degree of partiality rules someone out from being on a REF panel? If not this, what more?”

Chappell was contacted several times by THE about the complaint but did not respond to requests for comment.

With REF panel decisions on what constitutes 4* (“world-leading”) research or 4* impact studies determining where millions of pounds of QR funding goes, the perception that gender-critical research might be viewed unfavourably could determine which outputs are submitted, and which areas of philosophy are supported, by departments, argued Pike.

“These REF decisions on what to submit are hugely important for the type of philosophy supported by universities. Chappell’s appointment will only add to the ‘chilling effect’ criticised in the Sullivan Review which highlighted the hostility faced by researchers in this area,” he added, referring to a 2025 report by UCL sociology professor Alice Sullivan.

“In my view, we need a clear and public repudiation of discrimination against gender-critical research, in order to assure the integrity of the REF process in this area,” said Pike.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com