Page content
Purpose and overview
This briefing sets out key headlines pertaining to the proposed impact element of the 2029 Research Excellence Framework (REF), as detailed in the high-level ‘Initials decisions’ document1 recently produced by the 4 UK higher education funding bodies, resulting from analysis and consultation undertaken by the Future Research Assessment Programme.
Fig. 1 below comparatively captures the proposed changes to the impact element for REF2029 against the REF2021 iteration.
The stated overarching rationale for these changes is to effect consistency with a ‘more inclusive’ research assessment exercise characterised by an ‘expanded’, more holistic understanding of excellence and ‘greater understanding of the importance of research culture in underpinning excellent research with wider social impacts’, as exemplified by a ‘rethink’ of what should be recognised and rewarded, ‘capturing the valuable contributions of a wider range of researchers and research-enabling staff’.
Next steps: some (see Fig. 1) aspects of the proposals will be subject to further sectoral consultation, with draft REF2029 guidance anticipated summer to autumn 2024.
1 Research England, et al., ‘Research Excellence Framework 2028: Initial decisions and issues for further consultation’ (REF 2028/23/01). Swindon: Research England, 2023.
| Impact sub-profile item | REF2021 guidance | REF2029 ‘initial decisions’ | Stated rationale for change | Areas of further consultation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name of impact element (sub-profile) | Impact | Expanded to ‘engagement and impact’ | ‘In order to recognise and reward a wider range of impact-enabling activities’… | N/a |
| Weighting of impact element within overall quality profile | 25% | 25% | N/a | N/a |
| Number of required cases studies | Revised/ reduced (see Fig. 2 below) | To ‘reduce the burden’ of submissions | Consultation focus: views sought on impact of reducing minimum to 1 and revising thresholds | |
| Supporting impact statement | Not included | Reintroduced (weighted on sliding scale - proportionate to number of required ICSs - at minimum of 20% of sub-profile) | ’To recognise and reward approaches to maximising the impact of research… set[ting] out the wider contribution research activities to society and the economy’… | Initial consultation focus: views sought on sliding scale weighting Further consultation planned around appropriate content for statement: metrics/data/ indicators |
| Assessment criteria | Reach and significance | Reach, significance and rigour | ‘To ensure that appropriate focus is placed on the process of delivering impact… [a]nd given the increased focus on engagement’… | Not directly referenced in current consultation plans However, panels to be asked to ‘consider developing and operationalising 3 an additional criterion’… |
| Underpinning research minimum 2* quality threshold | Pertained | Removal of 2* requirement (NB: but requirement remains to demonstrate impact results from research activities) | (i) ‘To understand excellence more holistically … encouraging the submission of a wider range of impacts based on a broader base of underpinning research’… (ii) Reduce submission burden | N/a |
| FTE of volume-contributing staff | Required number of case studies | Weighting of impact statement |
|---|---|---|
| Up to 9.99 | 1 | 50% |
| 10 to 19.99 | 2 | 33.33% |
| 20 to 39.99 | 3 | 25% |
| 40 to 59.99 | 4 | 20% |
| 60 to 89.99 | 5 | 20% |
| 90 to 119.99 | 6 | 20% |
| 120 to 169.99 | 7 | 20% |
| 170 or more | 8, plus one further case study per additional 50 FTE | 20% |
