Category / Research assessment

Open Access Salons! – Phil Ward

In June Research Professional reported that Prof Adam Tickell, successor to Dame Janet Finch, will be holding a series of salons to discuss Open Access.

Open Access salons! What a great idea.

A hairdressing salon. A row of women sit under hard hat dryers along the back wall, flicking through out of date copies of Grazia magazine. At the front a stylist fusses around a client in front of a large mirror.The bell on the door tinkles as a woman enters. Everyone turns to look at her.

STYLIST: Can I help you, love?
WOMAN (nervously): Yes, I was wanting a quick trim..?
STYLIST: Open Access, is it?
WOMAN: Pardon?
STYLIST: Do you want your haircut to be Open Access?
WOMAN: I don’t really understand…
STYLIST: Do you want your hair to be freely viewed by members of the public? Or do you want to wear this over your head?

She holds up a paper bag.

You’ll only be allowed to take it off if people pay to view it, or have bought a general subscription to my salon. Could get quite complicated.
WOMAN: But that’s crazy!
STYLIST: I’m just allowing others to benefit from this salon whilst protecting my business. It’s a tough world out there. It’s not as easy to make money out of hairdressing these days, you know.
WOMAN (patting her hair, and looking at the women at the back): Well, I guess I don’t really have a choice, do I? If I want others to see my hair.
STYLIST: You’ve made the right choice, love. Right then: if you want it to be Open Access, you’ll have to pay me a Hair Processing Charge, in addition to any other money I might get from you.
WOMAN: How much is that?
STYLIST: It varies. Averages about a thousand pounds.
WOMAN: A thousand pounds! But that’s outrageous!
STYLIST: It’s actually very good value. There’s a huge amount of unseen work involved in haircutting. Of course, we do offer a discount for pre-payment. If you buy 10 haircuts up front, we’ll give you a 20% reduction.
WOMAN: But still that’s £800!
STYLIST: Take it or leave it. You could go for the green option, of course.
WOMAN: What’s that?
STYLIST: You submit your hair to your local wig shop. However, it can’t be the final version. It might include bits I’ve missed, and won’t include any final changes we might make.
WOMAN: So my option is to have an incomplete haircut and put it on display in a wig shop, or pay a grand so that other people can look at it?
STYLIST: Essentially yes. Alternatively you could opt not to go Open Access. But then you will have to wear the paper bag.
WOMAN: But…but…
STYLIST: Look, love, it’s for your benefit! We need to protect your reputation and uphold the esteem and profile of this salon. And think what Open Access hair will do for you: More people will see your hairstyle, and will mention it to others. And people from the poor parts of town will be able to freely look at your hair.
WOMAN: And…and what if the people who see my hair decide they don’t like it? What if they disagree with my choices?
STYLIST: Well, if they make a good case we might have to retract it.
WOMAN: Retract it?
STYLIST: Yes. We might say we no longer agree with the hair and the underlying decisions which informed it. We might even decide to glue back any hair we’ve removed to restore the cut to its previous state. And I’ll put an apology note in the window.
WOMAN: This is ridiculous! I’ve changed my mind. I don’t want a trim any more.

She storms out of the salon.

STYLIST: I don’t know. No pleasing some people. (She returns to the client in the chair). So what style do you want, my love? A David Sweeney, you say? Right you are.

Written by Phil Ward, Deputy Director, Research Services, University of Kent.

Congratulations to Dawn Morley

Congratulations to Dawn Morley, senior lecturer in HSC, who is taking on leadership of the Post Graduate Certificate in Education Practice with immediate effect from Linda Byles, as she is leaving BU shortly. Many of you will know that Dawn is currently CEL theme leader for innovation, entrepreneurship and creativity and is looking forward to this new role, which will be for semester one at this point. I’m sure you will all look forward to working with Dawn in this new capacity.

Thanks.

Gail

Professor B. Gail Thomas

Dean of Health and Social Care & Director of the Centre for Excellence in Learning

Bournemouth University

Want to know how you target high impact journals?

My Publishing Experience: Prof. Matthew Bennett

Wed 23rd July 12:30-14:00 Russell Cotes Museum, Bournemouth

On Wednesday 23rd July, Prof. Matthew Bennett will be hosting a Writing Academy lunchbyte session at the Russell Cotes Museum.

In this session, Matthew will talk about his personal publishing experience, his approaches to research and writing, how to develop a publication strategy and the challenges of working with colleagues and dealing with both reviewers and editors.  He will talk about all type of publishing from journal articles, to books via edited compilations.  Drawing on personal experience he will also focus on how you target high impact journals.   After the presentation, attendees are invited to stay and discuss the topic with the speaker over lunch.

To book a place on either of these workshops, please email staffdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk

If you have any questions relating to these sessions then please contact Shelly Anne Stringer

BUs Open Access Event in Video!

open access logo, Public Library of ScienceIn May, we were privileged to welcome experts on the topic of Open Access to speak at Bournemouth University (BU) in an event well attended by delegates from HEIs across England, Scotland and Wales.  BU’s Open Access Event was enjoyed by all who attended, if you missed the event or would just like to recap on the presentations the videos from the event are now available for your viewing pleasure –

Benefits of Open Access – Alma Swan

Open Access in a Post-2014 REF – Ben Johnson, HEFCE

Open access + social media = increased downloads – Jane Tinkler, LSE Impact of Social Sciences Project

Open Access publishing and emerging networks of open research – Catriona MacCullum, PLoS

Implementing open access at the University of Oxford – Catriona Cannon, Bodleian Libraries

Open Access: BU Style – Emma Crowley, Jean Harris and Shelly Maskell

 

Brush up yer BRIAN

BRIANRKEO will be delivering some ‘Brush up yer BRIAN’ training on 19th June 2014 1pm for Media School staff and students. The session will cover:

  • What is BRIAN and why is it important
  • How to set up and maintain your BRIAN profile
  • How to ensure your details are correct
  • How to request a photo is uploaded
  • How BRIAN links to your external staff profile
  • How BRIAN data is used towards BUs KPIs

 To book on please register here.

Firsthand: HEFCE’s Open Access Policy

A few weeks back we were privileged to welcome experts on the topic of Open Access to speak at BU in an event well attended by delegates from HEIs across England, Scotland and Wales. The event was enjoyed by all who attended and over a series of blog posts I hope to summarise some of the key points raised by each of the speakers. We also filmed the event so hope to be posting this soon for all to watch, enjoy and comment upon. 

A few days a go, I summarised Alma Swans Introductory Address on ‘The benefits of Open Access’. Today, I look at Ben Johnson’s presentation ‘Open Access in a Post-2014 REF’.

Ben Johnson is a policy adviser at the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), where he has worked for the past five years. He has a first class honours degree in music from the University of Southampton, and ten years’ experience working in strategic planning, process improvement and risk management. Since joining HEFCE, Ben has focussed on developing the Council’s thinking in novel, emerging and cross-cutting policy areas. Recently, these have included examining how technological advancements can drive openness in education and research. In 2013, Ben joined the research policy team to lead HEFCE’s work on open access, research information and infrastructure.

In April, HEFCE and the other three UK funding bodies published details of a new policy for open access relating to future research assessments after the current 2014 REF. To read this item in full visit: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/newsarchive/2014/news86805.html. In his presentation, Ben talked through this policy and answered questions from delegates throughout the day.

He opened his presentation by outlining Open Access its flavours and routes. GOLD being the journal making the work immediately and freely accessible online under a CC-BY licence and GREEN by the author depositing their work into an intuitional or subject repositories at point of acceptance – further information can be found in earlier blog posts (How to deposit to BURO, Green & Gold).

HEFCEs core principle behind the policy is that outputs submitted to a post-2014
REF should be Open Access and they have three objectives in implementing the policy:

  • Significantly increase the uptake of open access options
  • Protect author choice as much as possible
  • Stimulate the deposit of work in repositories

 

  The minimum requirements of the policy are that:

  1. The final peer-reviewed draft of your paper is deposited in an institutional or subject repository on acceptance
  2. The repository record must be discoverable ASAP
  3. The full text must be accessible ASAP (or once an embargo has elapsed)

 This will apply to all journal articles and most conference proceedings (those with an ISSN), he also stipulated that the maximum embargoes to be allowed will be:

  • REF main panels A and B – 12 months
  • REF main panels C and D – 24 months

An analysis of the REF 2014 submissions found that 96% of outputs could have been Open Access based on this criteria and the remaining 4% would be covered in the exceptions of the policy.

In addition to this, extra credit will be given in the research environment component of the post-2014 REF where an HEI can demonstrate that:

  • Outputs are presented in a form that allows re-use of the work, including via text-mining
  • Outputs not in the scope (books etc.) are made open access

 The prediction is that this will lead to:

  • Significantly greater uptake of open access (even within publishers’ current policies)
  • Increased visibility and usage of repositories
  • Many more immediate deposit mandates
  • Later: author-driven moves to faster and more permissive access
  • Later: open access is ‘solved’ for books etc.

Full slides from Ben Johnson’s presentation at Bournemouth University’s Open Access Event on the 7th May 2014 are available here internally.

If you would like to deposit your full text articles into BURO you can do this easily via BRIAN, full guidance can be found on the staff intranet pages.

Should metrics be used more widely in the next REF?

Back in 2008, after the dust was settling from the REF 2008 submission, HEFCE initiated a series of exercises to investigate whether bibliometric indicators of research quality (such as citation counts) could be used as part of the assessment for REF 2014. BU was one of 22 institutions that took part in the bibliometrics pilot, the result of which was that HEFCE concluded that citation information was not sufficiently robust enough to be used formulaically or as a primary indicator of quality but that there might be scope for it to inform and enhance processes of expert review in some disciplines. The REF 2014 guidelines stated that citation data would be provided for outputs submitted to all sub-panels in Main Panel A and some sub-panels in Main Panel B.

In April 2014, the Minister for Universities and Science asked HEFCE to undertake a fresh review of the role of metrics in determining quality, impact and other key characteristics of research undertaken in the HE sector. The review is being chaired by Professor James Wilsdon, Professor of Science and Democracy at the Science Policy Institute, University of Sussex.

HEFCE have launched a sector-wide call for evidence about research metrics and BU will be making an institutional response. BU colleagues are therefore invited to send feedback to me so that it can be considered as part of BU’s response. Colleagues are also invited to send individual responses to HEFCE.

Thinking back to 2008-09, I remember research metrics being an emotive subject and many researchers, both at BU and  across the sector, were extremely skeptical of their use in research assessment. Although bibliometrics have moved on a long way since then I think that there will still be concern as to whether metrics are robust enough to be used formulaically, particularly in the arts, humanities and social sciences.

HEFCE have asked that responses focus on the following issues:

1. Identifying useful metrics for research assessment.

2. How should metrics be used in research assessment?

3. ‘Gaming’ and strategic use of metrics.

4. International perspective.

Further information about the call for evidence is available here: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/rsrch/howfundr/metrics/

It is anticipated that the outcome of the review will inform the framework for the next REF assessment so it is vitally important that HEFCE receive a high quality and quantity of feedback from all disciplines.

If you would like to contribute to the BU institutional response, please add your comments to this response form and email it to me (jnortham@bournemouth.ac.uk) by Friday 30th May.

BUs Open Access Event

Last Wednesday, BU hosted a sector-wide Open Access Event at the EBC. The day was a great success with attendees travelling from universities across the UK to hear keynote speaker Alma Swan and speakers from HEFCE, LSE Impact Blog, PLOS, University of Oxford and BU talk about Open Access, one of the key priorities for the sector at the moment.

Feedback from the event has been overwhelming positive with attendees finding the day extremely useful with lots of interesting discussion throughout the day. Over the next few weeks, we’ll be posting blogs summarising the key points from each of the presentations so keep your eyes peeled…

HEFCE’s Open Access Policy for the next REF Published

HEFCE and the other three UK funding bodies have published details of a new policy for open access relating to future research assessments after the current 2014 REF.

The policy describes new eligibility requirements for outputs submitted to the post-2014 REF (commonly referred to REF2020). These requirements apply to all journal articles and conference proceedings accepted for publication after 1 April 2016. They do not apply to monographs, other long-form publications, creative or non-text outputs, or data.

 open access logo, Public Library of ScienceThe requirements state that peer-reviewed manuscripts must be deposited in an institutional (BURO) or subject repository on acceptance for publication. The title and author of these deposits, and other descriptive information, must be discoverable straight away by anyone with a search engine. The manuscripts must then be accessible for anyone to read and download once any embargo period has elapsed.

There are limited exceptions to the policy, where depositing and arranging access to the manuscript is not achievable.

This policy was developed following an extensive two-stage consultation during 2013, to which they received over 460 written responses.

 To read this item in full visit: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/newsarchive/2014/news86805.html

If you would like to know more about Open Access, Bournemouth University are hosting asector-wide Open Access Event on the 7th May with Ben Johnson from HEFCE presenting on the policy, places are limited so if you’re interested, please register here.

In the meantime, if you would like to deposit your full text articles into BURO you can do this easily via BRIAN, full guidance can be found on the staff intranet pages. Alternatively, there are two BRIAN training sessions scheduled which you can book on to here.

 

Open Access Event

On Wednesday 7th May, Bournemouth University will be hosting a sector-wide Open Access Event looking at the benefits of Open Access from both the green and gold perspectives, as well as, focusing on how Open Access can support the achievement of research impact. 

So far confirmed external sessions are as follows:
 
open access logo, Public Library of ScienceThe Benefits of Open Access
Alma Swan – Director of Advocacy Programmes, SPARC Europe
 
Open Access and Implications for REF2020
Ben Johnson – Higher Education Policy Adviser, HEFCE
 
The Twitter Effect and How Social Media Can Promote Engagement with Research
Jane Tinkler – Manager, LSE Public Policy Group
Sierra Williams – Managing Editor, LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog
 
The Open Access Framework
Catriona MacCallum – Advocacy Projects Manager, Public Library of Science (PLOS)
 
Case Study: Successful Implementation and Best Practice
Catriona Cannon – Assistant Director, Bodleian Libraries University of Oxford
 
There will also be sessions delivered by Bournemouth’s BURO team and Bournemouth academics talking about their own open access experiences.
 
Places are limited so if you’re interested, please register here!

Congratulations to Anne Quinney

Anne Quinney, Senior Lecturer Social Work (HSC) who has been appointed to the Editorial Board of the highly esteemed British Journal of Social Work.

Anne recently stepped down as Editor and Co-Editor of the peer-reviewed journal Practice; social work in action.  Whilst she also recently completing her five-year term of office as Editorial Board member of the peer reviewed journal Social Work Education.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health

REF2014

REF logo

I’m sure I heard a collective sigh of relief radiate across both campuses last week when BU’s REF2014 preparations were finally submitted. It’s been a huge amount of work, especially in the last few weeks. I myself did a little dance when I eventually handed the case studies over for PengPeng to upload, and then bought a sausage sandwich to mark the occasion.

But all the hard work and late nights that have been put in across the academics community, professional services and the leadership team are well worth it. I truly believe the ‘submit’ button was pressed in the knowledge that BU has absolutely put its best institutional foot forward and, regardless of the result (which I’m sure will be fabulous), no one will be left feeling, ‘We could have done better.’

I’m already looking back on the REF preparations fondly. I feel very lucky to have worked on this important project with such a great group of people. BU has so many talented researchers who are passionate about their subject. Matthew’s energy, vision and drive meant the submission presented BU at its absolute best. And I can honestly say I never met a more organised and efficient group of people than Julie Northam, PengPeng Ooi and Becca Edwards!

Having helped prepare the impact case studies across the eight units, I’ve had an amazing overview of the true societal benefit BUs research brings.  Through the process I’ve examined national and international policy documents, spoken to CEO s of multinational companies, patients benefiting from healthcare interventions and many other diverse beneficiaries who sing the praises of BU researchers and the application of their work.

I think what’s most telling though, is the number of case studies that haven’t been submitted this time round because the impact was too embryonic or interim. Regardless of what the next REF will look like (and impact is bound to be more prominent), this really shows the great impact trajectory that BU’s research is currently tracking. Examples include:

  • Dr Venky Dubey and Neal Vaughan’s epidural simulator project, which recently won the Information Technology category at the Institution of Engineering and Technology Innovation Awards, fending off competition from over 30 countries.
  • Later this month the new multimillion pound Stonehenge visitor centrewill open, bringing together knowledge and displays informed by Dr Kate Welham and Professor Tim Darvill’s research.
  • Dr Sarah Thomas and Professor Peter Thomas from the BU Clinical Research Unit have worked with the Dorset MS Service at Poole Hospital to develop a group based fatigue management programme to help people with MS normalise their fatigue experiences.

From January I’m really looking forward to working on these and other projects, using communication as a tool to enhance dissemination of research findings, helping deliver impact to the heart of society.

(And now I have reacquainted myself with my kitchen, I may also cook some vegetables to counter all the ready meals and chocolate that’s kept me going recently)!!

The unexpected REF journey: how I became part of the process and how it has shaped how I think about HE



Changing places

Two years ago, I could have never imagined the role that I would ultimately play in BU’s REF submission. At the time, I was a research fellow at a nearby institution and in that fortunate position of being able to take a certain detached distance from the whole REF process. Even so, there was a building surge of preparations absolving more and more time for my senior colleagues; simulation exercises were underway and the work of some of the brightest and the best critically scrutinized. Tensions were raised, impact was feared, but for the most part at that stage, I was progressing a number of research projects which meant a lot of time out of the office and in the field.

In April 2012, I took the momentous step leaving the research post which I had worked so hard to get, to pursue my lifelong passion and commitment to public engagement with research. Initially, in no way was my new role to be related to our REF submission, indeed, in many institutions there is a concerted effort for public engagement officers not to be connected to the ‘impact agenda’. There are many reasons as to why this is the case, not least is the fear that public engagement will be tarnished by REF anxieties, but in my-case, that was not meant to be…

Fate intervenes

As you may have read in Julie’s earlier post, babies became a central feature of the REF team. When we knew Sally was going on maternity leave, I was asked to continue her work on supporting the development of the impact case studies for the REF. Although a mammoth task, it was an opportunity that I could not refuse. On my last day in my previous institution, I had co-organised an event around ‘food and the third sector’, aimed at bringing together key practitioners with leading academics in the field. It was a terrific event and I believe genuinely developed new understandings between key practitioners, policy makers and academics. One of our speakers (not so co-incidentally) was Kevin Morgan (one of my first bosses and recent winner of an ESRC impact prize) was delighted to hear of my new role at BU and I remember him saying (in his distinct lyrical tones) that ensuring research was of benefit to society was ‘in my blood’ – probably true given I come from a family of engineers and technology experts! How you demonstrate impact was also a question that was fresh in my mind having spent the previous two and a half years conducting research with third sector organisations. For charitable causes, impact is king – fundamental to continued support and funding  is the need to demonstrate the difference they make to society.

Climbing the impact mountain

In September 2012, the impact challenge was on. Following a set of agreed actions devised by Matthew, Sally and all the impact case study authors in June 2012, the next task was for the work that had been prepared to date to be transferred into the required HEFCE template. This is harder than it sounds: the template was to be a maximum of four pages with indicative word limits for each section and highly prescribed guidance on each section. At this time, a number of new potential case studies also emerged, and I worked with the authors to develop these and ensure they found their way into the template.

The process of doing this was tremendously challenging for all concerned. How do you summarise up to twenty years of research in a few hundred words? What happens if your research and impact was non-linear? What happens if the sources to corroborate your impact are no longer available? What would happen if the impact was in the process of happening? We found our way through these questions as a team, but we won’t necessarily know the answers to them until the end of next year – however good HEFCE’s answers to the sectors endless queries, it will ultimately be the decisions made in the endless meetings that will take place over 2014 which will determine these.

What did become increasingly clear was the extent to which the impact case studies would be dependent on creating a strong narrative. With such a small amount of space to tell a complex story, this was easier said than done and across the sector colleagues were struggling with how to achieve this. I seem to have spent a not inconsiderable amount of last year in a small room in a hotel in Bristol with other members of REF teams encountering the same issues to which there was rarely an easy answer to. In some ways it was reassuring to know  BU was grappling with the same issues as all our colleagues across the sector. However, it highlighted just how we much were making preparations for the big unknown, i.e. how panel members would react when they caught sight of our impact case studies.

At the same time, a huge number of ‘impact consultants’ seem to have popped up and my inbox filled with offers of very expensive help. This proved to be a hot topic last year, the extent to which expertise should be ‘bought-in’. Some colleagues just wanted their case studies sorted, however, what stays in my mind was a reflection from a professorial colleague at another (research intensive) institution. He was furious that a ‘science writer’ has been imposed on him, making the argument that he was a professional writer and no-one was better placed to write about his research or the impact it had made, although he acknowledged that learning to write case studies was a new skill. That reflection has stayed with me; writing impact case studies is a particular skill, but arguably one which all academics will have to learn in future years.

Mock exercise

2013 started with a writing retreat over in Christchurch, which was an excellent opportunity for peer learning, reflection and contemplation. As the depths of winter gave was to spring, the mock exercise was on and all the impact case studies needed to be in as final form as possible ready for external review by our expert (and mostly non-academic) panel. This was a tense moment; we knew that ‘research users’ (i.e. those in a position to use the research arising from Universities) will be on the REF panels; therefore, it was essential that we had feedback from this community. In the end, their feedback, mostly confirmed what we already knew.

Getting everything ready in-time was a huge amount of effort, especially for my colleague Peng Peng (who did an amazing job throughout) – there were many late nights in the office and we kept each other going with increasingly banal banter and many cups of tea.  We were also putting around double the number of case studies into the mock exercise that we would ultimately need. At the same time, I was also working on another major initiative for BU, the first Festival of Learning – which included over 100 free events, which in itself was a mammoth undertaking.

As the law of sod will dictate, as the mock exercise meetings for our impact case studies fell over the two weeks that the Festival was running. This meant for an extremely busy fortnight for me, with many costume changes – typically my day would start setting up the Festival by 7.30am, (in our Festival t-shirt and jeans), with a  quick change into something smarter for the panel meetings, followed by Festival trouble shooting and most evenings a Festival event well into the evening.  I didn’t really see home or my husband in that fortnight, but it was an incredibly productive two weeks and somehow the timing felt right. It was with a sense of pride that I was able to show our panel members around the Festival and demonstrated that ensuring our research is of benefit to society wasn’t just something we were doing for the purposes of the REF, but something embedded in BU’s DNA.

Sally’s return, impact statements and finalising our submission

Following the mock exercise, Sally came back from maternity leave. It has fantastic to have such a great colleague back with us and Sally was able to bring a fresh pair of eyes to the process and her superb writing skills. She bravely took up the baton of the impact case studies and honed those that had been selected following the mock exercise. This freed up my time to concentrate on the impact narratives, which proved to be especially tricky. Like the impact case studies, we did not have any examples to work from previous exercises. They also asked us to demonstrate the approach to impact taken by each unit of assessment; this was easier said than done as reach back to 2008, there was not necessarily any formalised plans for approaching impact – so this meant drawing on institutional knowledge to develop this section. Working with unit of assessment leaders on future impact strategies was exciting but challenging. Introducing impact as part of the REF has raised many questions, many of which we do not have the answers for.

When we reached November 2013, I remember it seeming quite surreal that the date which we had been focusing on for so long, was finally in view. Naturally, there were some last minute amendments to our submission, but overall the period in the REF team was reasonably cool, calm and collected. Waiting for the button to be pushed, and for the 29th November to pass, felt like time was suspended. And now we wait… although given the years of preparation that have already gone in, a year doesn’t feel so long.

Some early REF reflections

There are many reflections, observations and evaluations to be made over the coming year (and no doubt beyond). Publications are emerging on impact, which I am looking forward to reading and sharing the findings of these with colleagues across BU. I find myself musing over many thoughts, some of which are:

–          The ‘impact agenda’ isn’t going anywhere.  Many colleagues suggested that HEFCE would find a new way to torture us in REF 2020, but I think it is safe to say that demonstrating impact is here to stay, and is likely to be a larger element of the submission next time around.  

–          Our REF preparations have created a superb resource. Yes, it was a huge amount for everyone that was involved in the REF return, however, it has enabled us to demonstrate the very best of what BU does.

–          We must not waste or lose the institutional learning or resources created in preparation for the REF.  In creating an amazing resource for the REF, we share this learning throughout the HE sector an engage the public with it.

–          It has opened the debate about what are Universities are for. Should Universities be drivers of economic growth? Should they be cultural providers? Should they provide the evidence demanded by policy makers? Questions about what universities are far are the as old as the institutions themselves, however, the impact case studies once published will provide interesting food for though. What the REF has perhaps made apparent is that within institutions, there are widely different views on what the future for HEIs could or should be, which in-turn can lead to considerable tension.

–          It has raised questions about who sets the questions. Who drives our enquiry? Does research answer the questions needed by society, or is it our academic community that sets the questions? I suspect the answer lies somewhere within a continuous iterative process, but others may have a very different view.

–          Impact is far more than happy what we can submit to the REF. So much of BU’s best impact does not meet the criteria set out by the HEFCE guidelines, but that does not mean we should stop doing in. In-fact, quite the opposite. As a community we need to challenge the definition of impact and take ownership of it. This means engaging with the impact agenda, not dismissing it.

–          Public engagement is about far more than impact.  Public engagement can be a pathway to impact, however, it is also about far more than impact as defined in-terms of the REF. It is also about inspiring and informing future research, demonstrating the broader public value of HE, celebrating what we do, being accountable and recruiting the research participants of the future.

I will, I am sure, have far more observations and reflections over the coming weeks and months. But until then, I will forward to a break over Christmas before starting in earnest with our REF 2020 preparations. This is something which I genuinely look forward to – despite the inevitable stresses that have arisen from the process, being part of the REF team has brought home just how fantastic BU is and how much opportunity there is to grow and develop as an institution moving forward.