Survey of PSA members on the REF process - Political Studies Association

Earlier this year, in May/June, the Political Studies Association conducted a survey of its membership to find out about their experience of the recent Research Excellence Framework (REF) and their views on the process and its implications for individuals and the discipline more widely. Our aim was to generate insights into the impact of the REF, how it was interpreted by HEIs and departments, the feelings of academics at different levels towards the process and its outcome, and the consequences for political studies in the U.K., with a view to how the PSA can better support and manage these consequences in future. The findings of the survey may be of use to members engaged in evaluating the REF2014 process, and performance against different criteria, and also to those planning for any future research assessment frameworks. The PSA intends to use the findings to inform how it responds to future assessments of research quality and how it can better support its members and the study of politics more generally.

Report highlights

Our respondents were generally in either agreement or strong agreement (63%) that they had been well-informed about the REF process overall.
A sizeable proportion of PSA members (25%) disagreed that they were well-informed about the REF.
There were high levels of concern about the amount of guidance provided on how research impact was measured in REF2014. Some 73% if respondents indicated that there was too little guidance on how impact would be measured.
Overall satisfaction with the process was quite low, with 35% indicating that they were satisfied and 46% dissatisfied.
An area of particular concern was the level of transparency around the assessment of the research environment, with 59% of our respondents highlighting this.
More positively there was broad consensus that the time period between submission and REF outcome was about right (83% agreed with this).
Almost half (46%) were of the view that the relative evaluation of monographs, book chapters, and journal articles was not fair (and a further 35% did not know). In open-ended responses, the treatment of monographs was viewed as especially problematic in view of the relative amount of work that is involved in their production.
Some 52% of respondents felt that the weighting of monographs was too little. Several qualitative responses to the survey favoured double-weighting of monographs (one qualitative response argued against double-weighting altogether).
Guidance provided on the treatment of monographs was seen as unclear (with 42% considering the guidance as being not sufficiently clear, and 38% considering it clear).