Is it time to bid farewell to the Research Excellence Framework (REF)? This question is sparking a heated debate in academic circles, and one prominent voice is challenging the status quo. Duncan Ivison, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester, has boldly suggested that scrapping the REF should be a serious consideration, raising eyebrows across the higher education sector. But here's where it gets controversial: Ivison, a leader of a prestigious Russell Group university, is questioning the very foundation of this massive research assessment exercise, calling its 'usefulness' into doubt.
In an interview with Research Professional News, Ivison admitted his stance might be seen as 'slightly unorthodox' for someone in his position. Yet, he argues that exploring alternative methods to evaluate research quality is not only valid but necessary. When asked directly if he advocates for abolishing the REF, his response was unequivocal: 'It should absolutely be on the table as a serious option.'
And this is the part most people miss: Ivison draws a compelling parallel with Australia, which discontinued its similar program after a 2020 review—a process he witnessed firsthand as Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Research at the University of Sydney. While acknowledging the UK's context differs due to the REF's role in allocating £2 billion in quality-related (QR) funding annually, he remains skeptical. 'Is the REF still teaching us anything meaningful?' he asks. 'It’s an enormous bureaucratic endeavor, and I’m not convinced it’s worth the effort.'
The QR funding, distributed as block grants based on REF outcomes, is a lifeline for research-intensive universities. Ivison admits that leaders like him are 'perpetually anxious' about the government potentially cutting this funding. However, he challenges the sector to think critically: 'Is the REF the only mechanism to validate research quality while supporting QR? Many believe so, but I think we owe it to ourselves to explore alternatives.'
One such alternative could be technology. A December study by University of Bristol academics revealed that many institutions are already using artificial intelligence (AI) to prepare REF submissions, though adoption varies widely. Ivison suggests that a tech-driven approach could streamline the process, making it less bureaucratic. But here’s the catch: Can AI truly assess the nuanced quality of research in fields like the humanities or creative arts, where traditional metrics like citations fall short? 'We need to ensure any new system provides the sophisticated evaluation these disciplines require,' he cautions.
Here’s a thought-provoking question for you: If the REF were scrapped, what system would you propose to ensure fair and effective research funding? And do you think AI could ever truly replace human judgment in assessing research quality? Ivison’s full interview will be published by Research Professional News on February 11, but the conversation is already underway. Share your thoughts below—let’s debate the future of research assessment together.
