Download REF Code of Practice: Identifying Research Staff at University of Buckingham and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Decision Making in PDF only on Docsity!
The University of Buckingham
A Code of Practice
for the Identification of Category A Eligible Staff with Significant
Responsibility for Research, and of Independent Researchers; and for the
Selection of Outputs for Submission by approved Units of Assessment
prepared for
The Research Excellence Framework 2021
Version 1.4.7 Last revised 17 September 2019. Approved by the Chairs of University Research Committee; Diversity and Inclusion Committee; Learning and Teaching Committee; Executive Group; the School Boards of Business; Education; Computing; Humanities and Social Science; Law; Medicine; Psychology and Wellbeing, and by the University Council's Risk, Audit and Compliance Committee. The Code has passed through a full consultation process with all permanent, part-time, fixed- term academic staff and all visiting/occasional lecturers, and was submitted ‘pending [final] agreement’ from staff representative groups to be obtained inter alia through the University Senate and Council at their meetings of 8 and 11 July respectively. This was obtained, at which point (12/07/2019) REF was informed as per REF2019/03 para. 42. See section 1.9.8 below and Appendix H. The present version has also been available for staff consultation, ending on 20/09/2019. This evolving document will be regularly reviewed and revised to ensure congruence with a. Broader institutional policies/strategies that promote and support equality and diversity b. REF Guidance on Codes of Practice, Guidance on Submissions, Panel Criteria and Working Methods (published 31 January 2019) and other guidance documents c. All relevant legislation
Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction 3 Section 2: Identifying Staff with Significant Responsibility for Research 9 Section 3: Determining Research Independence 21 Section 4: Selection of Outputs 25 Section 5: Appendices 32 List of Figures Fig. 1 SRR Identification flowchart 10 Fig. 2 SRR and IR Status Identification Timeline 13 Fig. 3 University of Buckingham REF21 Processes, Decisions, and Management Structure
Fig. 4 Independent Researcher identification process 21 Fig. 5 Example of a completed scoring sheet for a UoA contributor. 26
1.5.1 In addition to ‘study leave’ academic staff described in 1.4 are, with few exceptions (timetable dependent) also encouraged and entitled to reserve 1 day per week for private study, which may be undertaken off campus. Again, while this may be valuably put to the furthering of research objectives, the Buckingham ‘study day’ is specifically not time allocated for research in a uniform workload model. For example, in the School of Medicine, many staff contracts are ‘teaching only’ but indicate a time allocation of 20% non-prescriptively for scholarship/research. In the School of Education (also established since the turn of the century) a majority of staff, e.g. those mentoring in schools, are on fractional ‘teaching only’ contracts. 1.6 This Code of Practice is context-dependent and takes into account much therefore that is unusual if not unique in the circumstances of the UK’s first independent university, and it draws on standard ways of working at the institution which are nevertheless not the norm elsewhere. For example, while the University has supported research-active staff internally in numerous ways, externally this has not been reciprocated by the funding environment for HEIs that do not have HEFCE contracts: staff at the University of Buckingham have historically been deemed ineligible to bid as Principal Investigators for Research Council grants, nor has it been straightforward or entirely logical for the University to configure itself as an IRO (Independent Research Organisation) for the same purpose. At time of writing, the University is not unionised. 1.7 Relationship between the Code and broader institutional policies/strategies that promote and support equality and diversity As both an employer and a body in indirect receipt of public funds via the Student Loans Company, the University of Buckingham needs to ensure that its REF procedures do not discriminate unlawfully against, or otherwise have the effect of harassing or victimising individuals because of age, disability, gender identity, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation, or because they are pregnant or have recently given birth. 1.7.1 The University of Buckingham’s Royal Charter enshrines its commitment to equality. Clause 15 states: ‘The University shall abide by all relevant discrimination legislation and discrimination will not affect admittance to the University, the holding of office therein or the bestowing of any advantage or privilege therein’.^2 This determines sections 3-5 of the University’s Equality and Diversity Policy, which set out the University's legal responsibilities under the 2010 Equality Act and its monitoring obligations. The Policy forms Section 5.14 of the University’s Regulations Handbook (the definitive reference-point for all academic and non-academic regulations and policies).^3 This also relates to and defines Section 8 of the Dignity at Work and Study Policy and Procedures (Section 5.13 of the Regulations Handbook),^4 and the foregoing are also encapsulated as core values in the University’s statement of its Principles and Values (Section 1.2 of the Regulations Handbook) where university members are exhorted to be ‘respectful, inclusive and supportive – providing equality of opportunity (^2) See https://www.buckingham.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/University-of-Buckingham- Charter-and-Statutes-13.02.19.pdf [Accessed 8/3/2019]. (^3) See https://www.buckingham.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/5.14-Equality-and-Diversity- Policy.pdf [Accessed 8/3/2019]. (^4) See https://www.buckingham.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/5.13-Dignity-at-Work-and- Study-Policy-Procedures.pdf [Accessed 8/3/2019].
for all to fulfil their potential in a supportive, caring environment; being respectful of the dignity of others and practising solidarity in our community’.^5 1.7.2 Our Code of Practice has been developed by the REF21 Steering Group with the above reference-points in mind, and discussed and approved by the relevant institutional bodies that take direct responsibility for the monitoring of the broader institutional responsibilities with respect to, and for, developing strategies to support and promote, Equality and Diversity: namely the University Council or governing body, its Senate, and subcommittees of the foregoing, in particular, the Diversity and Inclusion Committee, and the Executive group. 1.7.3 As this is the first occasion on which the University of Buckingham has submitted to REF, there can be no update of actions taken since REF 2014. However, care has been taken to learn from the experience of REF 2014 by consulting such documentation as the EDAP report for REF 2014 on good practice in the development of Codes of Practice^6 and the final EDAP report on equality and diversity in the REF (January 2015). 1.8 How the institution is addressing the principles of Transparency, Consistency, Accountability, and Inclusivity in demonstrating fairness. The University addresses the principle of Transparency in its REF procedures through a communication strategy that is intended to ensure that every member of staff (including those absent from work) is informed about them, has access to the totality of relevant information about them, and has easy means by which to request clarification. It is an additional part of the remit of its ongoing Equality Impact Audits (EIAs; see 2.5) to report on this aspect. 1.8.1 The University addresses the principle of Consistency in its REF procedures by ensuring that there is a single and uniform set of processes which staff with decision-making responsibilities have been trained to follow. Regular minuted meetings of its REF Steering Group ensure that variation in procedures between Units of Assessment are kept to a minimum. It is an additional part of the remit of its ongoing EIAs to report on this aspect. 1.8.2 The University addresses the principle of Accountability in its REF procedures by i. ensuring that its REF21 Steering Group reports directly to those bodies within its Governance structure which have responsibility for its legal and ethical adherence to Equality and Diversity matters, and disseminates information to all bodies within its Governance structure which promote and support research ii. ensuring that all those involved in the process in a decision-making or advisory capacity shall have had access to specific training in their roles and responsibilities, provided by appropriate external bodies^7 It is an additional part of the remit of its ongoing EIAs to report on this aspect. 1.8.3 The University addresses the principle of Inclusivity by i. stressing the collegiate nature of its REF submission, whereby all staff are informed about its progress, whether Category A eligible or not, and whether submitting to any UoA or not (^5) See https://www.buckingham.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1.2-Principles-and-Values.pdf [Accessed 8/3/2019]. (^6) See https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/pubs/refcodesofpracticegoodpracticereport/#d.en.75885 and https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/equality/edapreport/ [accessed 1/2/2019]. (^7) E.g. AdvanceHE..
iii. explanation of what to do if they believe they have been wrongly identified either as having SRR or as not having SRR, and a template letter for reporting this iv. explanation of what to do if they believe they have been wrongly identified either as having Independent Researcher (IR) status or as not having IR status v. a portal by which to submit an SRR or/and IR status appeal confidentially vi. a reminder of the University’s commitments to the principles of Transparency, Consistency, Accountability, and Inclusivity, and an explanation of the REF21 Audit group’s according Terms of Reference (see 2.3.4 below) vii. means by which any staff member can contact the Audit Group confidentially viii. news, announcements and reports of on-going EIAs 1.9.5 Whole Staff Assemblies: since 2015 the university has met three or four times per term in each of the four academic terms, at 9am on Monday mornings for whole staff assemblies known as Monday Morning Meetings (MMMs). Attendance is not compulsory but strongly encouraged, and all academic departments as well as support services and departments are represented. Information about the draft Code of Practice, the collegiate approach to REF it seeks to embed, and the procedures proposed has been/will be communicated on the following dates: Monday 18th^ September 2018 Monday 13th May 2019 (Communications strategy) Monday 10th June 2019 (Code of Practice submission) Monday 8th July 2019 (report on initial Equality Impact Assessment for CoP) Monday 7th October 2019 (update on SRR Identification process and EIA (see 2.5.3) Monday 2nd December 2019 (update on IR Status Identification Process and EIA (see 2.5.3) 2020 – Dates not yet confirmed; topics to be included in later versions of CoP 1.9.6 University Podcasts – termly REF21 podcasts from Spring 2019 onwards, giving updates on progress, key information and URLs. These are aired on a repeat-cycle on flat-screen TV monitors across the main campuses of the University where there are concentrations of staff and teaching facilities: Anthony de Rothschild Building foyer, Chandos Road Building foyer, Franciscan Building, the Old Town Mill foyer, and the Vinson Building foyer. 1.9.7 Traditional mailing. To ensure that all academic staff on teaching or research contracts, including those on leave of absence, are reached with information about the University’s REF procedures, three mailings to designated home addresses are planned, containing a REF bulletin and information about how to access interactive datapoints such as those outlined in 1.9.3 and 1.9.4. above; proposed dates: June 2019; December 2019/January 2020 (after final COP publication); May 2020 (prior to July census date). 1.9.8 The principles of Transparency, Consistency, Accountability, and Inclusivity around which the University seeks to build its first REF submission dictate that a full and thorough consultation with staff needs to take place concerning the key processes outlined in this Code of Practice. The REF21 Steering Group has set in place a multi- platform Communication Strategy that it believes will permit this, but various factors mean that the University cannot be confident that by the submission date of 7 June 2019 staff will have had sufficient time to discuss and respond to the draft Code in a manner that fully honours these principles i. the rigours of the Buckingham 4-term teaching calendar mean that many staff are teaching until the week ending 7 June 2019, and then engaged in examining
and marking prior to exam boards in late June; we believe staff need the opportunity to engage with the Code outside of the pressures of the teaching year ii. as a first-time REF entrant, the University of Buckingham has not had the experience of drafting and approving a code for previous exercises to build on, and has wished to prepare thoroughly and methodically, and this has naturally taken time iii. we have wished to take advantage of the full series of REF guidance webinars and workshops during the early months of the year and to bring ideas and precepts from these into the drafting process, further shortening the consultation process for the completed draft; likewise we have sought external training for those with decision-making responsibilities (2.37–2.3.9), which has required a planning and tendering process, meetings before and after training workshops to prepare and reflect on materials, and to incorporate insights into the Code; this has had a similar impact on timing iv. the timeframe since the publication of REF Guidance on Codes of Practice and the newly-introduced template (31 January 2019) has been tight in itself, particularly considering the schedule of our internal committee meetings in the Winter and Spring Terms. However, unlike other HEIs, we have a full committee cycle during the Summer Term (early July to late September) and wish to take advantage of this to provide formal approval points through Senate and Council meetings in July, so that staff representatives can bring forward the verdict of the consultation v. the University is not unionised (1.6) and without union representatives to represent groups of staff we are engaging directly through face-to-face ‘town hall’ style meetings and the MOODLE platforms, and wish to obtain strong evidence of reach and saturation by these means as well as making full use of committee structures before concluding our consultation process We believe for all these reasons it is right and proper to submit our code 'pending [final] agreement' and will inform REF/Research England as soon as the required agreements have been attained (predicted 12 July 2019). Addendum: agreements were obtained as outlined above, and Research England informed on 12 July 2019. See Appendix H.
Fig. 1. SRR Identification Flowchart
2.1.2 Commentary on application of SRR criteria/indicators
- To have research-related objectives agreed in annual Personal Development Reviews (PDRs) during the REF cycle It is HR policy that all Schools of the University implement for all permanent or fixed-term employees an annual Personal Development Review, which considers the previous year’s goals and objectives in context of personal, departmental, and wider institutional goals, and sets new ones for the year to come. The PDR is not explicitly linked to performance, disciplinary matters, or pay but reviewers are in a position to seek local or central resourcing for approved initiatives, including those relating to research activities and objectives.
- To have a specific proportion of their time allocated for research in a workload model or equivalent As outlined in 1.4 and 1.5, academic staff in many Schools of the University are typically allocated 1 term in 4 as a ‘Study Leave’ term and are required to agree beforehand with their line manager a proposal for how it will be spent. This may include by mutual agreement research-related activities; similarly, staff are allocated a weekly off-campus ‘Study Day’ free of teaching duties, which may similarly be approved for research-related activities.
- To have supervised or co-supervised research student(s) successfully, or to be supervising students who have not yet submitted The sixteen duties, qualifications and responsibilities of research supervisors, as stipulated in the Research Degrees Handbook of the University, require levels of expertise and engagement suitable and relevant to SRR identification. New supervisors are appointed in a supporting (2nd supervisor) role and/or work with a Director of Studies as mentor until the successful completion of one or more projects. 10
- To have successfully applied internally or externally for funding to present paper(s) at research conferences This criterion and the one below are adapted from suggested possible indicators of research independence in the REF Guidance on Submissions para 132, to fit the atypical funding position for the institution, whereby Buckingham academics are considered ineligible to apply for most sources of national (Research Council) funding; hence the broadening of the criteria to include internally-administered research funding schemes such as the Dennison Research Awards and the (2014-2019 only) Santander Universities UK Research and Mobility Awards.
- To have successfully applied for research project funding internally or externally, as Chief or Partner (Co-)Investigator See above; internal research project funding schemes include the Dennison Research Awards and the (2014-2019 only) Santander Universities UK Research Awards. External funding schemes for which Buckingham academics are eligible to apply include (among others) those run by The Leverhulme Trust, the European Union (currently), and some of those run by The British Academy.
- To be members of a designated research centre or institute of the University The University is home to numerous research groups, and designated centres of excellence and Institutes; the majority of these are listed at https://www.buckingham.ac.uk/research. Membership of such groups typically involves levels of expected research activity suitable and relevant to SRR identification, as well as (in the case of honorary research appointments, though such individuals are not Category A Eligible) a rigorous nomination and approval procedure, overseen by the University Senate. (^10) Section 3C.1 iv) a)–p) https://www.buckingham.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/3C.1-Roles- Responsibilities-and-Induction-for-Research-Staff-and-Students.docx [accessed 7 April 2019].
Fig. 2. Revised SRR and IR Status Identification Timeline (updated from version 1.4.5 of this document). 2.1.5 Methodology Initial decisions will be formally communicated to staff by the following emailed letter template generated from the MOODLE 2021 REF - Consultation; Key Information and Processes; News platform, and according to the timescale above. This will be backed up by a hard copy notification letter sent to the contractual address of all staff, to ensure that those absent from work or not accessing university email have access to the result of the process. Dear ___ You have been initially identified, following completion of the MOODLE questionnaire^13 and any subsequent corroboration deemed necessary by the REF21 Steering Group, as having/not having * SRR (significant responsibility for research) during part or all of the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 October 2020. [* deleted as applicable] (^13) ‘Do I have Significant Responsibility for Research during the current REF cycle (2014–20)?’
You have been enabled to contribute to the consultation over these procedures through enrolment on the interactive MOODLE platform 2021 REF - Consultation; Key Information and Processes; News during the period 27/05/2019 – 07/06/2019 (initial responses) and then through a formal response process conducted via University committee structures during the Summer Term 2019 (July, August). If you wish to query or actively seek to appeal against this identification please visit the interactive MOODLE platform 2021 REF - report Circumstances; appeal SRR identification; contact D&I Audit Group on which you are also enrolled, and follow the guidance provided there. Yours sincerely [signature] On behalf of the REF21 Steering Group Chair 2.2 Development of process(es) 2.2.1 As mandated in Guidance on Submissions (para. 142) and paras 41-43 of the Guidance on Codes of Practice, the processes described in 2.1 above were/are being consulted over as follows: i. By members of the REF21 Steering Group, including the Audit Group, between 29/04/2019 and 13/05/2019, with input and adjustments as recorded in the COP Archive, viewable to all staff on MOODLE REF Consultation and Processes platform. This will include a statement on the perceived D&I impact, whether neutral, positive, or negative ii. By the School Boards, during the Spring and Summer Terms 2019, with input and adjustments as recorded in the COP Archive; viewable ditto, statement ditto iii. By the Diversity and Inclusion Committee, during the Spring and Summer Terms 2019, with input and adjustments as recorded in the COP Archive; viewable ditto, statement ditto iv. By the University Learning & Teaching Committee, during the Spring and Summer Terms 2019, with input and adjustments as recorded in the COP Archive; viewable ditto, statement ditto v. By the University Research Committee, during the Spring and Summer Terms 2019, with input and adjustments as recorded in the COP Archive; viewable ditto, statement ditto vi. By members of the University Senate, at its Spring and Summer Term 2019 meetings, viewing drafts updated with the aggregated input of the Boards, D&I, ULTC, and URC; viewable ditto, statement ditto vii. By the University Council at its meeting on 11 July 2019 2.2.2 As mandated in Guidance on Submissions (para. 142) and paras 41-43 of the Guidance on Codes of Practice, the processes described in 2.1 were/are being agreed with staff representative groups as follows: o School Boards, University Research Committee, Diversity and Inclusion Committee, University Learning & Teaching Committee, at meetings during the Summer Term 2019 (July, August)
2.3.6 The REF21 Steering Group fits into the wider institutional management structure as displayed in Fig. 3 below. Fig. 3. University of Buckingham REF21 Processes, Decisions, and Management Structure
2.3.7 All members of the REF21 Steering Group (both the UoA Steering Group and the Audit Group members) were trained at a bespoke Workshop on 10 April 2019. This was delivered by AdvanceHE to the University’s specification, following informal consultation with REF staff at a meeting in February 2019. 2.3.8 The Workshop was delivered according to the following schedule, with detailed slides circulated to all attendees and a small number of absentees the following week: Services to be provided: A half-day workshop to be delivered and facilitated by AdvanceHE to train staff in regards to EDI considerations in the forthcoming REF 2021 submission. Objectives: (^) Process review: To enable the Steering Group to review draft processes for selecting staff and outputs, and the Code of Practice, in light of a full understanding of legal and moral obligations not to disadvantage or discriminate against employees with protected characteristics, amend them as required, and then recommend them with a clear conscience to the University as a whole for adoption and approval, before they are also submitted to REF in June 2019. Methodologies: A secondary outcome is to brief the Audit Group on reliable methodologies for conducting EIAs [Equality Impact Audits/Analyses] and how the results of those could feed into the running of our processes. 2.3.9 Following this training, and given the point in the cycle at which REF entry was confirmed (past half way), the REF21 Steering Group considered that while some appointments to advisory and decision-making roles had been established as early as 2013, well before final guidance had been published, this had been done in good faith even if what is now considered best practice in equality and diversity decision-making had not been embedded in the process. Hence rationales could be defended, although the Audit Group proposes that a separate Equality Impact Assessment should be carried out where possible on the resulting data and reflected on with due consideration. 2.4 Appeals 2.4.1 The University of Buckingham proposes a robust appeals mechanism to allow members of staff to appeal after they have received feedback on the outcome of the process for determining SRR and/or Research Independence (see section 3 below), and for that appeal to be considered by the HEI and a response made, before outputs are externally reviewed and the composition of output pools is decided (see 4.1.8). 2.4.2 The appeals process has been communicated to staff as part of the REF Communications Strategy given in 1.9.
2.5.2 The EIAs thus embody the COP as a living document, linked to past and future actions and anticipated impact, and will endeavour to provide meaningful contextual information alongside such data analysis as can be reliably performed on the sample sizes deriving from the REF processes of a small institution.
2.5.3 With this proviso, EIAs will be carried out at/during the following phases of the processes set out in this COP, including the processes for:
Appointing staff with REF-related decision-making responsibilities (see 2.3.9 above)
[EIA = Spring Term 2019]
identifying staff with a significant responsibility for research
[EIA = Summer Term 2019]^16
determining research independence in staff who are on ‘research only’ contracts
[EIA = Summer Term 2019]
considering appeals against SRR identification of staff (whether positive or negative)
or against the IR identification
[EIA = Autumn Term 2019]
selection of outputs for submission from the pool of in-scope outputs for each UoA
[EIA = Summer Term 2020]
preparing the final submission, at which point intersectionality (e.g. of the
combination of more than one protected characteristic) and the cumulative effects of REF processes, will be considered
[EIA = Autumn Term 2020 and post-submission]
(^16) EIA to include oversight of the process with respect to the University’s duties and obligations to fixed- term and part-time staff. See 2.13 above.
