The next Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise will be held in 2028, with eligible institutions submitting their returns in late 2027. It will look different from REF 2021 in some key areas. The three main elements of the last REF – environment, outputs and impact – have been renamed and refocused and the respective weightings adjusted accordingly. The new categories will be ‘People, culture and environment’ (25%), ‘Contribution to knowledge and understanding’ (50%) and ‘Engagement and impact’ (25%). A number of other changes have been agreed, some aspects of which require further consultation with research communities.  

We are very aware that the REF only directly affects researchers in the UK, but the Association acknowledges the impact that national policies and developments in both Ireland and the UK have on our regional DH landscape. 

A short, targeted consultation was opened on 15 June 2023 and will close on 6 October 2023. Like many other learned societies and subject associations, the UK-Ireland Digital Humanities Association will be submitting a response to the consultation, and we are keen to represent your views. If you would like to feed your views into the Association’s response to the consultation, or provide any evidence for consideration, please contact us by email at uk-ie.digitalhumanities@sas.ac.uk.  

The consultation survey is available at https://engagementhub.ukri.org/re-research-policy/ref2028-for-further-consultation/, and can be completed by individuals acting in a personal capacity or on behalf of an institution or other body. 

The first questions are concerned with what the REF documentation describes as the ‘volume measure’: ‘To ensure fair assessment, it is necessary for the size of HEIs’ submissions to be related to the scale of their research activity. In order to capture the capacity in specific disciplinary areas, the volume measure must be based on a measure of input to the research process (rather than outputs or outcomes)’ (REF2028/23/01, para. 71). For REF 2028, institutions will no longer submit individual staff, rather staff data will be drawn from HESA (the Higher Education Statistics Agency), based on the average number of staff over a period of years. The questions posed to the community are: 

1. What practical challenges may institutions face in implementing these changes?  
2. How might the funding bodies mitigate against these challenges?  
3. What would be the impact of these changes on individual researchers and particularly those with protected characteristics or other underrepresented groups?  

The second set of questions concerns the submission of outputs. For REF 2028, while HEIs will still be required to submit 2.5 outputs per relevant FTE, no minimum or maximum number of outputs will be required for individual staff. This breaks the connection between individual members of staff and unit submissions. For the first time, outputs produced by staff on non-academic and teaching-only contracts may be submitted. This may have a significant impact for researchers and practitioners in DH, including technicians as defined in the UKRI’s ‘Technician Commitment’. Given the expansion of people whose work can be submitted, should this be further extended to include work by postgraduate research students, perhaps even PhD theses? Also likely to be of particular interest for DH are the arrangements for ensuring that due recognition is given to co-authored work, with institutions being able to include single outputs in multiple submissions. The questions posed to the community are: 

1. What would be the impact of these changes on individual researchers and particularly those with protected characteristics or other underrepresented groups? 
2. What impact would these changes have on institutions in preparing output submissions? For example, what may be the unintended consequences of allowing the submission of outputs produced by those on non-academic or teaching-only contracts? 
3. Should outputs sole-authored by postgraduate research students be eligible for submission? If so, should this include PhD theses? 
4. What would be appropriate indicators of a demonstrable and substantive link to the submitting institution? 
5. Do the proposed arrangements for co-authored outputs strike the right balance between supporting collaboration and ensuring that assessment focuses on the work of the unit? 
6. Are there any further considerations around co-authored outputs that need be taken into account? 

The third set of questions relates to what is now the ‘Engagement and impact’ element of the REF, which encompasses impact case studies (as previously) and ‘a structured explanatory statement which sets out the wider contribution of research activities to society and the economy’ (REF2028/23/01, p. 24); ‘The funding bodies intend to weight the statement on a sliding scale, proportionate to the number of case studies submitted’. The minimum number of impact case studies required per disciplinary submission will be reduced to one, and the case study requirements per FTE have been further revised (e.g. for REF 2021, three impact case studies were required for 20-34.99 staff submitted; for REF 2028, three case studies will be required per 20-39.99 contributing FTE) (REF2028/23/01, p. 31). The questions posed to the community are: 

1. What will be the impact of reducing the minimum number to one? 
2. What will be the impact of revising the thresholds between case study requirements? 
3. To what extent do you support weighting the impact statement on a sliding scale in proportion to the number of case studies submitted? 

The fourth category of information sought concerns the unit of assessment (UOA), where there will be no changes to the structure adopted for REF 2021. Advisory panels on ‘Equality, diversity and inclusion’ and ‘Interdisciplinary research’ will remain. The following feedback is requested from the community, where appropriate: 

1. If the UOA structure is relevant to you/your organisation, please indicate clearly any changes that you propose to the UOA structure and provide your rationale and any evidence to support your proposal.  

The fifth set of questions relates to the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, where it is proposed to retain the statements on the impact of COVID-19 that were used in REF 2021 and to ask institutions to describe how the impact of the pandemic has been addressed in output selection. The questions posed to the community are: 

1. What is your view on the proposed measures to take into account the impact of the Covid pandemic? 
2. What other measures should the funding bodies consider to take into account the impact of the Covid pandemic? 

Finally, there are two questions concerned with the impact of any changes on those using the Welsh language. 

1. What positive or adverse effects will the proposals have on opportunities for persons to use the Welsh language and treating the Welsh language no less favourably than the English language? 
2. Could the proposals be changed to increase positive effects, or decrease adverse effects on opportunities for persons to use the Welsh language and treating the Welsh language no less favourably than the English language? 

If you would like to feed your views into the Association’s response to the consultation, or provide any evidence for consideration, please contact us by email at uk-ie.digitalhumanities@sas.ac.uk.  

The full report on the REF 2028 decisions, Research Excellence Framework 2028: Initial Decisions and Issues for Further Consultation (REF2028/23/01) is available at https://repository.jisc.ac.uk/9148/1/research-excellence-framework-2028-initial-decisions-report.pdf.