Highlights from the National Postdoc Meeting

Written by Dr Kennedy Nkhoma, Research Fellow, Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation

I attended a two day National Postdoc meeting organised by the Postdocs of Cambridge Society at the University of Cambridge. The main objectives were to:

  • Input into the review of the Concordat document
  • Discuss the impact of postdoc researcher’s contribution to the REF
  • Discuss with employers, funders and policy makers on postdoc experiences related to the concordat and REF.

Day 1

On the first day a presentation was delivered by Dr Katie Wheat, the Higher Education Senior Manager at Vitae. The purpose of this workshop was to provide a cross-sector input into the review of the Concordat, a central policy document for higher education in the UK, currently undergoing a review process coordinated by Research Councils UK from the perspective of postdocs. She outlined the seven principles in the Concordat: (1) recruitment, selection and retention (2) recognition and value (3) equipping and supporting researchers in a diverse mobile, global research environment, (4) personal and career development (5) researchers responsibility (6) diversity and equality (7) implementation and review.  We were then divided into seven groups and each group discussed one principle. Each group discussed their experiences, ideas for development, adaptation and revision, and ideas for evaluation.

The following themes came out of group discussions and presentations:

  • The Concordat is not visible to researchers, most participants felt they only heard about the document when this meeting was called for.
  • There is a problem with the structure of the principles, for instance Principles 3 and 4 are similar, they can be combined to be one principle, however representation of researchers under principle 4 is very important and should be its own principle.
  • Mentorship: it is important for researchers to find a mentor who is not their line manager and they should also mentor others.
  • Career development for Principal Investigator (PI): The need for PIs to attend training on how to manage postdoc researchers.
  • Research staff associations to be encouraged and involved in decision making.
  • Financial commitment of funders and employers on career development: for instance principle 5 does not address funders and employers, it only addresses researchers who are not signatories of the Concordat.

Day 2

On day two we discussed the impact of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) on Postdocs. Three main areas were discussed:

  • Eligibility: There are plans to change the eligibility criteria to include any researchers with ‘a measure of independence’. There is little understanding of if postdocs are part of the eligibility process and who is included. Postdocs are not fully involved in the process of REF development. There is a need for a course/funded training to have a better understanding of the REF and how they may be affected.
  • Collaborate – Collaboration needs an experienced researcher such as a PI since postdoc researchers have limited experience. However PIs have to provide an environment for postdocs to be involved in the process in order to gain experience.
  • Portability vs non-portability: The current policy recommends non-portability which would mean that papers published by an individual in one institution stay with that institution when research staff leave in an effort to prevent the gaming previously seen by institutions buying up outputs. The main take home message is perhaps double weighting of inputs, so that previously unreferenced individuals can take their outputs with them and the hosting institution also keep ownership. However institutions should try to provide incentives to research staff to retain them in their role.

Conclusion

The last session was a panel discussion with funders from the Wellcome Trust and MRC, employers from Imperial College London, University of Cambridge and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and policy makers from the Royal Society. Issues in relation to the Concordat and REF were presented to the panel for their views.

The panel agreed with the issues raised, in particular emphasising that it is both the researchers’ and employers’ responsibility to make choices and important decisions about their career. Funders strongly recommended participants to demonstrate capacity to manage funding, resources, and staff to be able to win a grant or fellowship.

The next concordat review takes place next year, therefore issues raised by the postdocs will be taken into consideration during the review. Participants agreed that meetings should be held annually and rotated.

It was exciting and rewarding to be involved in reviewing the Concordat which influences my working environment at King’s. It was interesting to learn from other postdocs who share similar experiences and challenges about the uncertainty of career paths, especially in relation to fixed-term contracts. This showed me that we are all in this together.

Impact and REF

Written by Dr Ben Nichols, Research Policy and Governance Administrator, Research Policy and Operations

I’m sure that anyone working in research has heard their colleagues complain about the Research Excellence Framework (or REF). And if you’ve been reading this blog you’ll have seen a number of references to it. The REF is the most recent incarnation of the periodic assessment of research quality in UK universities that has happened every 6 or 7 years since 1986. The results of this assessment translate directly into how much money institutions get from the Government, so universities put a lot of effort into making good quality submissions. But many have criticised the exercise for introducing unnecessary competition, for its administrative burden, and for creating undue pressure on researchers.

Ahead of the REF that took place in 2014, HEFCE (the body responsible for formulating and running the REF) introduced an aspect of the exercise for assessing the “impact” of research. Whereas previous exercises had assessed research outputs (mostly publications) and research environment (the infrastructure and culture that supports research), they wanted a system for assessing how research makes things happen outside academia. The guidance published by HEFCE ahead of the last REF defined “impact” in brief as “an effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia.” Universities were invited to submit case studies in largely narrative form that described how excellent research that they had demonstrably contributed to had generated this kind of impact. These case studies were then awarded scores on the basis of their “reach and significance” by panels of subject experts and the scores, in turn, made up 20% of a unit’s, and therefore an institution’s, overall “quality profile.”

This focus on research impact introduced by REF 2014 has of course generated differing opinions. Some have welcomed it, arguing that researchers are funded by public money and should therefore show how their work directly benefits the public who pay for them. But as with other aspects of REF, “impact” has come under fire. Some argue that it encourages applied over theoretical research, disadvantages those in precarious positions (such as contract research staff or ECRs), and creates cults of personality around certain impactful academic “stars.” Moreover, some have asked why researchers have been asked to demonstrate their impact when the same burden is not always placed on other activities also funded by public money. At the same time, there is often a recognition that the assessment of impact in REF 2014 has generated a large database of impact case studies (6,975 in fact), useful for demonstrating the tangible benefits of university research to those who might not necessarily be convinced of its intrinsic value.

Whatever is the case, it looks like the assessment of impact is here to stay. HEFCE recently held a consultation on the criteria for the next REF, scheduled to take place in 2021. Proposals for the assessment of impact in the future include: creating a unified definition with the UK Research Councils, introducing institutional- as well as unit-level impact case studies, and widening and deepening the sense of what research impact is. The preliminary results of this consultation are due any day now and we’ll know more once they’ve been announced. One thing we know for sure, though, is that the formal assessment of research impact is unlikely to go anywhere soon.

Impact: A Short Introduction

Written by Nadia Xarcha, Research Information Coordinator, Faculty of Arts & Humanities

Yes, you’ve heard about it! Your PI or line manager has mentioned it at some point and your research colleagues talk about it during their coffee break. Questions like – who came up with impact in the first place? Why do I have to think about it? Why can’t I just concentrate on my research? – have definitely crossed your mind a few times.  I know, it might be overwhelming but I have news for you: You’re already delivering impact!

What is it exactly and when was it introduced?

‘Impact’ was introduced a few years ago for the purposes of the REF[1] and there are several definitions but impact, in simple words, is the benefit of research to society. What has changed (behaviour, practice, etc.) as a result of your research? Examples of impact might be the alteration of public policy, the introduction of a new school curriculum, the improvement of patients’ health and many, many others that cannot be demonstrated in a short post. Just browse through the old impact case studies and you will rediscover the beauty of conducting research.

And why does it matter so much?

In REF terms, impact was developed in order to showcase the reach and significance of research and to allow external audits of how public money is spent. But impact is not and should not be just about the REF. It is the link that makes researchers’ work known to people from outside research who otherwise might not have been engaged, even though it might deeply affect them. It helps researchers reflect on their research questions and outcomes and conduct better research in the long term. It motivates them to communicate their research in simple words to a wider audience.

Should an early career researcher engage with impact?

It’s a personal decision but I would encourage you to do so as it is helpful for the development of your research career. As an early career researcher, you definitely have a lot in mind and impact might seem to be the cherry on the cake, but I think this is not the way to see it! Impact can actually be satisfying. What I would suggest is that you focus on doing exceptional research and enjoy that journey. The ‘impact element’ of your research will then emerge naturally. And we have plenty of resources (people, training, seed funds, etc.) here at King’s to support you with it at every stage of your research (the earlier the better). Just talk to us. Remember, you’re not alone in this

[1] REF: Research Excellence Framework is the system for assessing the quality of research in UK higher education institutions.

Get your Voice Heard on the REF 2021

Written by Nudrat Siddiqui 

The implementation of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) in 2014 is thought to have strengthened best practice in the way research is assessed. One probably unintended consequence was that it resulted in unease for many members of research staff trying to break into the Academy. The REF has seen universities placing expectations on research staff in their recruitment practices similar to those associated with senior academics, such as requiring hopeful job candidates to have already whipped up a certain number of REF ready outputs, or be working tirelessly towards delivering them by the end of their probationary period if offered a post. These might seem to be practically Herculean feats as the volatile nature of research staff contracts often entails constantly scouring for new jobs, as well as teaching and short-term research project commitments, leaving limited time to engage in the independent research called upon for the REF.

The REF isn’t all doom and despair though. It has also brought about positive change, with many research staff reporting that it has encouraged them to start factoring public engagement and impact initiatives into their careers early on. This is also aligned to several guiding principles of King’s Strategic Vision 2029.

In the run up to the second REF in 2021, the President of the British Academy, Lord Stern, conducted a review of the REF and made a recommendation to block the portability of research outputs – A recommendation which if approved would mean that research outputs would not be transferable to other institutions. This has added to existing anxiety, with publications often viewed as the golden ticket to move to different institutions as contracts end, and to ultimately secure a permanent academic position. If the recommendation proceeds, it has been suggested that research staff should be exempted from it.

King’s is currently participating in the university-wide consultation for REF 2021 and invites your views, particularly on three main areas:

  • The Stern non-portability recommendation;
  • The approach to research impact;
  • Which members of research staff should be included in the REF.

Members of the Research Staff Representative Committee, comprised of faculty representatives from across the university, will be feeding into the consultation through King’s. Have you got something to say about the areas of consultation? Contact your faculty representative to get your views across before the deadline of February 28th 2017. Though the final specifications for the REF 2021 will not be shaped by King’s alone, your voice as King’s research staff community is paramount to both the university’s consultation, as well as the wider national position on it.