Comments for HEFCE REF Consultation

Comment on Overall assessment outcomes by Jd Webb

Jd Webb — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:26:05 +0000

Found your blog through Google

Comment on Introduction by Big bonus

Big bonus — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:21:03 +0000

Hello Where are You Free java casino no download casino List flash no download casino casino Virtual casino birthday welcome bonus casino Flash no download casino without deposit casino Internet poker web sites

Comment on Panel structure and consistency by Janet Watson

Janet Watson — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:22:22 +0000

Properly disinterested academics should be invited to assess submissions, by which I mean academics (European, US, Asian) not involved in any way in any REF submission. This is particularly important for the smaller panels, but of relevance to all panels.

Comment on Annex E – Panel structure by Janet Watson

Janet Watson — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:18:35 +0000

Linguistics aligns better with English language, however either unit is problematic for (the many) researchers working on non-European languages

Comment on Annex E – Panel structure by Janet Watson

Janet Watson — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:17:20 +0000

European studies aligns better with area studies

Comment on Quick Start by October #1 « take21

October #1 « take21 — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:21:55 +0000

[...] ResearchImprobable research IgNobel prizewinners 2009 Guide to the Research Excellence Framework Consultation. Have your Write To Reply [...]

Comment on Quick Start by October #1 at take21.org/blog

October #1 at take21.org/blog — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:10:53 +0000

[...] ResearchImprobable research IgNobel prizewinners 2009 Guide to the Research Excellence Framework Consultation. Have your Write To Reply [...]

Comment on Assessing output quality by George

George — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:57:25 +0000

An example of the types of metrics that could measure the impact of non-article type work can be found at this Public Library Of Science initiative: http://article-level-metrics.plos.org/

Comment on Consistency across panels by Martin

Martin — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:49:19 +0000

My feeling thus far is that interdisciplinary work, which didn’t fare well under the RAE, is being rather legislated against in the REF also, see the comment on less fluid boundaries, the narrow focus on metrics, etc. So it’s good to see this aim, but I don’t think it’s borne out in the rest of the document.

Comment on Panel structure and consistency by Martin

Martin — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:36:17 +0000

I appreciate the demands on panels, but the REF must be the only area where people are proposing having less fluid boundaries is the best way forward. This is almost entirely at odds with both the way research is progressing in a digital age, and the way we would wish to develop it.

Comment on The research environment by Martin

Martin — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:24:53 +0000

To continue the point above, these are depressingly narrow and traditional factors of esteem.

Comment on The research environment by Martin

Martin — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:24:19 +0000

Again, I feel a chance has been lost here to explicitly encourage exactly the sort of engagement we should be undertaking as researchers, namely that of new forms of engagement, be it video, blogging, social networking, etc.

Comment on Assessing output quality by Martin

Martin — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:56:57 +0000

This is a _very_ limited approach to the use of metrics, and effectively limits it to standard articles, thus undermining the principle above that any outputs will be recognised if they meet the definition of research. If we wanted to encourage new types of scholarly activity then using metrics that measured the influence of these would be a significant step forward.

Comment on Assessing output quality by Martin

Martin — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:53:51 +0000

While this is true for standard outputs the metrics might be a useful measure of overall impact of new types of scholarly activity. For example, it may be useful to look at the overall statistics relating to a blog, rather than one specific article or post.

Comment on Assessing output quality by Martin

Martin — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:46:53 +0000

These are not really definitions, more successive subjective scales. The danger that excellence as determined by an existing panel may not reward innovation is still present.

Comment on Assessing output quality by Martin

Martin — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:39:39 +0000

This is encouraging – I’d like to see new forms of output more explicitly recognised, eg blogs, videos, etc but at least it is a move away from the standard article.

Comment on Framework for assessment by Martin

Martin — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:42:04 +0000

This seems to be the same as the RAE and seems to have done little to combat the criticism that predefined categories tend to reinforce existing silos and not encourage interdisciplinarity. Particularly in a digital context the boundaries between disciplines become blurred. There is also the argument of Christensen that this is a ’sustaining’ approach rather than a disruptive one, but that it is in disruption we most often see innovation.

Comment on Introduction by Martin

Martin — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:25:42 +0000

This is good to see, although I would still like to see a stronger statement which explicitly recognises the changing nature of scholarship. If the overall aim of the REF is to make UK research world-class then firmly placing the digital transformation as an aspiration seems a positive approach (and ties in with the digital britain vision)

Comment on Introduction by Martin

Martin — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:22:56 +0000

Disappointing to see that the two drivers were to make it less cumbersome and to have a unified approach. These seem rather unambitious – one would have liked to see something like ‘to recognise the changing nature of research and dissemination in a digital age and to both reward and encourage this’.
There is mention of rewarding innovation further down as an aim, but it should have been set out as a recognition of what was missing in the RAE and thus a driver for change.

Comment on Annex E – Panel structure by Panel structure and consistency « HEFCE REF Consultation

Panel structure and consistency « HEFCE REF Consultation — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:16:11 +0000

[...] [90.] The proposed UOAs and panel structure are at Annex E. [...]

Comment on Annex A – Consultation questions and response form by Executive Summary « HEFCE REF Consultation

Executive Summary « HEFCE REF Consultation — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:15:56 +0000

[...] [5.] Responses to the consultation should be made by completing and returning the form at Annex A by e-mail (see paragraph 21) by midday on Wednesday 16 December 2009. var post_ID = 3 ; var [...]

Comment on Framework for assessment by Assessing output quality « HEFCE REF Consultation

Assessing output quality « HEFCE REF Consultation — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:15:39 +0000

[...] work of selected staff reflects our underlying policy to identify research excellence. As noted in paragraph 27g, the exercise is not designed to assess all research activity irrespective of its quality, and it [...]

Comment on Help by If You Don’t Like REF, What Are You Gonna Do About It? « OUseful.Info, the blog…

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:03:44 +0000

[...] paragraphs, as well as subscribe to comment feeds on a per section or per commenter basis (see here for more details, including information on how you can use the republication to formulate your own [...]

Comment on Quick Start by If You Don’t Like REF, What Are You Gonna Do About It? « OUseful.Info, the blog…

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:58:29 +0000

[...] If the thought of reading the whole thing puts you off, we’ve published a Quick Start Guide you can find the area of the consultation that particularly appeals to you, and just comment on that: Research Excellence Framework consultation: Quick Start Guide [...]