Research Excellence Framework 2021 Code of Practice

Part 1: Introduction

This Code of Practice1 sets out the University of Gloucestershire’s (UoG) approach to the determination of eligible staff and selection of outputs for submission to the Research Excellence Framework 2021. Specifically, it sets out how the University fairly, and in a transparent, consistent, accountable and inclusive way, goes about:

• Determining eligible staff (i.e. those with significant responsibility for research);
  • Determining who is an independent researcher;
  • Selecting research outputs.

The UoG approach is consistent with, and framed by, our current Strategic Plan for 2017-2022. One of the four strategic goals within that plan is to undertake research and professional practice which enriches students’ learning and creates impact and benefit for others. Our Academic Strategy details our approach to achieving that goal, with corresponding actions in each year’s operating plan and School Business Plans.

The University is fully committed to promoting equality and diversity in all we do, including research. We have a well-established equality and diversity policy, which was approved by the University’s Council in December 2016. The University’s Equality and Diversity Committee is responsible for oversight, monitoring and updating of the policy, reporting as necessary to the University Executive Committee and the Council.

The University’s commitment to equality and diversity is embedded in our values and in our People and Culture Strategy. We track progress through a regular staff survey, which includes a range of questions on staff experience of equality and diversity. Our annual people report includes analysis of the data we hold on the protected characteristics of staff, and includes analysis of staff recruitment, promotion and turnover by those characteristics. In 2017 we made our first submission to the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index (WEI), and we continue to progress our work against the WEI. We have registered our commitment to the Athena SWAN programme, and are recognised as Disability Confident, having achieved Level 2 of the Disability Confident Standard. We have supported 30 female members of staff to participate in the Advance HE Aurora programme.

Our REF2014 Code of Practice described our approach to equality and diversity as it relates to research. Since then we have:

• Developed a new corporate Strategic Plan for 2017-2022, underpinned by a new Academic Strategy and a new People and Culture Strategy.
• Put in place a new framework for the direction and management of research across the University, overseen by a new Research Committee chaired by the Vice Chancellor.
• Reviewed the pipeline to Professor and Reader, and taken steps to improve the diversity of our Professors and Readers.
• Launched an Early Career Research Network for early career academic staff and postgraduate research students.
• Prepared a revised and updated statement of Academic Career Pathways, to give clarity to the expectations of academic staff at each level.
• Our female professors have formed a group to review issues of gender in relation to research at the University.

The Equality Impact Assessment that accompanies our Code (see Appendix 1) suggests that we have made good progress in addressing the equality challenges we faced in 2014. In terms of eligible staff, independent researcher, and output selection, we are seeing no significant difference in the proportion of UoG academic staff within each of those categories compared to the remainder of the population of UoG academic staff. The datasets need to be interpreted with care because in some instances numbers are extremely small and we want to do further work to understand patterns of inclusion/exclusion for some black and minority ethnic (BME) groups.

The University has sought fully to embed the principles of fairness, transparency, consistency, accountability and inclusivity, across our research programme and our preparations for REF2021, as follows.

We have prepared a revised and updated set of Academic Career Pathways, to make transparent and explicit for all academic staff our three academic career pathways (namely, teaching and scholarship; teaching and research; and research) and the responsibilities expected of staff in each grade within each pathway. This is to ensure that the University’s expectations of staff are clear at every level, as a basis for ensuring that staff understand their opportunities for developing their own careers, specifically including research.

All academic staff are required to take part in the University’s annual Staff Review and Development (SRD) scheme. The aim is to ensure that each member of staff has objectives agreed with their manager for the year ahead, and has an annual performance appraisal discussion with their manager. As part of these SRD discussions and through ongoing discussions during the year between staff, their managers, Research Priority Area (RPA) Convenors and Unit of Assessment (UoA) Coordinators, the University expects that members of academic staff would agree with their manager their aspirations and plans to be research active and therefore whether their role should include a significant responsibility for research. In cases where staff have a significant responsibility for research, the SRD scheme provides the opportunity for setting research objectives and appraising research performance, with ongoing discussion about the development of research plans and outputs between staff, managers, RPA Convenors and UoA Coordinators. This ensures that all academic staff have the same opportunity to agree their research objectives with their managers. Those academic staff with a significant responsibility for research are expected to be categorised within either the teaching and research pathway or the research pathway and returned to HESA with the corresponding Academic Employment Function.

In 2014 the University confirmed a new framework for identifying and pursuing our research priorities. We identified six thematic “Research Priority Areas” namely:

• Environmental Dynamics and Governance
• Sport, Exercise, Health and Wellbeing
• Creative Practice as Research
• Applied Business and Technology
• Being Human – Past, Present and Future
• Learning and Professional Contexts.

Each RPA has an appointed Convenor, who works with colleagues to scope the research programme to be undertaken in that Priority Area and to identify which academic colleagues will contribute to that programme based on their research activity and interests. The RPA Convenors form the majority of the membership of Research Committee. The RPA is the means of distributing internal Quality Related (QR) funding on the basis of annual plans agreed through Research Committee. We have mapped each Unit of Assessment in which the University is active onto the relevant RPAs to ensure colleagues are clear how UoAs align to the RPAs. Each UoA has an appointed Coordinator, who works with colleagues to plan and support the development of research outputs and impact case studies for that Unit. This provides a transparent and consistent framework for identifying where the University will invest resources in achieving research excellence, so that all staff with a significant responsibility for research can identify which RPA and UoA they can best align to, and then work with the relevant Convenor and Coordinator in pursuing their research objectives, working towards agreed outputs. Progress reports for each RPA and UoA are submitted to each meeting of the Research Committee, including monitoring of progress in relation to equality and diversity.

The framework for line management and policy direction of research is illustrated in Appendix 2. Line managers are accountable for the operation of the SRD scheme in relation to those they manage, while RPA Convenors and UoA Coordinators are responsible for the direction of research programmes and supporting the development of research outputs, impact case studies, and the environment in their respective Areas and Units.

This Code was submitted in first draft, and then also subsequently as a revised draft to, and approved by, the University’s Research Committee and Academic Board. It was made available as a first draft to all members of staff through publication in the Vice-Chancellor’s monthly newsletter for November 2018, with an invitation to all staff to submit comments and views. A revised draft with the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) was made available to all staff through the Vice-Chancellor’s newsletter of April 2019, with a further invitation to comment. Following those discussions and consultations, the final version as submitted to the REF team in June 2019 was published on the University’s intranet. Staff on leave of absence continue to hold their email addresses, and therefore all receive the Vice-

Chancellor’s newsletter with its invitations to comment on the Code. The amended version, subsequent to the delay in submission deadline due to COVID, plus this final version, were published to staff once approved by Research Committee.

Part 2: Identifying staff with significant responsibility for research

Policies and procedures

• The University of Gloucestershire is a teaching-led, student-centred University. All academic staff, regardless of Academic Career Pathway, make a valued contribution to the work of the university. There is no presumption that all academic staff will have a significant responsibility for research. Those that do have a significant responsibility for research will also meet the criteria for REF eligibility, and therefore eligibility for REF and significant responsibility for research are aligned at the University of Gloucestershire. However, we also believe it is important to explain clearly how we determine those with significant responsibility for research, that we have assured ourselves that our approach is transparent, and that we examine carefully the impacts on protected characteristics and equality and diversity more broadly.

• For many years, the University has applied a presumption of appointing new academic staff to the “teaching and scholarship” job family. This reflects our teaching-led, student- centred mission. Only selectively and rarely have we appointed to the “teaching and research” or “research only” job family. Job families align to the three Academic Career Pathways (and JNCHES Job Families) and HESA Academic Employment Function.

• In preparation for REF2021, we have reviewed all employment contracts of all our academic staff to confirm the job family stated in their employment contract. This has confirmed that the majority of our academic staff are on teaching and scholarship contracts. We do not consider the staff on those contracts to have a significant responsibility for research, since their contributions are in teaching, learning, scholarship, student support, professional networks, and business development. For those staff on teaching and research or research only contracts, we apply a presumption that they will have significant responsibility for research. Our HESA staff return records those staff who are on research or teaching and research contracts versus those who are on teaching and scholarship contracts.

• As outlined in Part 1 of this form, the University operates an annual Staff Review and Development (SRD) programme. It is primarily through that process that members of academic staff agree with their manager their objectives for the year, including any objectives relating to research. Every member of academic staff has the same opportunity to discuss and agree with their manager whether their annual objectives will include research objectives.

• Where a member of staff and their manager agree that objectives should include research outcomes, that is shared with the Convenor of the relevant Research Priority Area (RPA) and the Coordinator of the relevant Unit of Assessment (UoA), so that the individual’s research plan can be logged as part of the intended research programme for that RPA and UoA, with support for the individual in developing their intended research outputs and

involvement in the collective activities of that RPA and UoA. RPAs and UoAs provide reports

to each meeting of the Research Committee on progress towards their targets for the quality and volume of outputs. The quality of every accepted/published output is externally reviewed to give an independent assessment. This approach applies consistently across the whole University. It gives complete transparency of those individuals who have significant responsibility for research.

• In cases where an individual’s contract specifies “teaching and scholarship” as their job family, but they develop their research engagement to the point where they are properly seen as having a significant responsibility for research, the University expects to amend their contract to re-categorise them within the “teaching and research” job family. This is done by negotiation and agreement between the individual and the University’s HR Department.

• The main criteria for decisions about whether an individual has a significant responsibility for research are: whether the individual has a track record of research outcomes; the credibility of their objectives and plans if they have no track record; and whether their proposed research meets a business need of the University and aligns with one of our RPAs and UoAs. Specifically, the process for determining a significant responsibility for research is:

• All eligible staff in the “Teaching and Research” or “Research only” pathways are assumed to have a significant responsibility for research;
  • Other academic staff have the opportunity to raise through the SRD discussion their research aspirations and plans and where relevant existing research outputs;
  • Where it is agreed through discussion between the member of staff, their manager, the relevant RPA Convenor and UoA Coordinator that there will be a future ongoing significant responsibility for research, the Academic Career Pathway can be amended from “Teaching and Scholarship” to “Teaching and Research”. The University expects that, as a consequence, a significant proportion of the Research and Scholarly activity time will be allocated to development of research outputs for REF;
  • Where agreement is not reached, it is expected that the general grievance process in place would be followed. As we approach REF2021, staff may opt to follow the appeals process in place for this specific exercise (see 2.13 -2.16 below for details).

This framework applies across the University and does not vary by UoA.

Development of process(es)

The University’s approach to developing this Code is summarised above in Part 1: Introduction. Specifically, two successive drafts of the Code have been published to all staff through the Vice-Chancellor’s monthly newsletter, the second draft with the associated EIA. The drafts have also been submitted to, and approved by, the University Research Committee and Academic Board. Final amended drafts, subsequent to COVID, have been approved by Research Committee and then published to all staff. Some components have been the subject of separate discussion and consultation with groups of staff, including the development of the Academic Strategy, the People and Culture Strategy, Academic Career Pathways, and the operation of the SRD programme.

Staff, committees and training

• The RPA Convenors and UoA Coordinators are roles, not posts, and the roles are filled by inviting suitably qualified and senior people who have a significant responsibility for research in a relevant discipline to take on the role. Since the RPA framework was introduced, the RPA Convenors have been selected from amongst our Professors or Readers.

• The membership and terms of reference of the Research Committee are provided in Appendix 3. The Committee’s papers and minutes are available on the University’s intranet for colleagues internally, except those that need to be kept confidential. The Research Committee reports to the University’s Academic Board, which receives regular papers on progress of the Academic Strategy, including the research ambition (see Appendix 4 – Overall Committee structure). Relevant research developments are reported in the Vice-Chancellor’s monthly newsletter and in all staff briefings once a term. They are also reported to the University’s Council.

• Each RPA has a steering group, meeting once each term as a minimum; membership includes RPA Convenors, UoA Coordinators, Heads of School* and subject community representatives; with action-focused notes for each meeting. The RPA Convenor Role, as well as the remits of the RPA Steering group are detailed in Appendix 5. A role description for UOA Coordinators is provided in Appendix 6.

• The University offers management training for all line managers, including in the use of the SRD framework. First line management for all academic staff is undertaken by the University’s Grade 9 Academic Subject Leaders (ASLs) who report to Heads of School (HoS). The University runs a leadership and management development programme for all ASLs. The University also provides specific training in equality and diversity for all staff. Training in Equality and Diversity is being provided for all RPA Convenors and all UoA Coordinators and specifically through a REF-focused training event for all Convenors and Coordinators on 18th June 2019.

*Schools are our primary academic management Unit, but we also have one structural Research Institute – the Countryside & Community Research Institute, whose Director is also an RPA member.

Appeals

• As explained above, the core mechanism for the University in identifying staff with significant responsibility for research is through the annual SRD programme, with ongoing discussion between staff, managers, RPA Convenors and UOA Coordinators. If any member of staff wished to make a complaint or appeal against decisions made by their manager in relation to the setting of objectives or the review of performance, it would be in accordance with well-established and thorough procedures set out in the University’s staff handbook, for raising a grievance against managers.

The staff handbook details each stage of the grievance process, including how those examining the grievance are appointed, with a view to ensuring full impartiality and

transparency. All staff are told, as part of their induction on appointment to the University, where to find the staff handbook on the intranet and its scope. Staff can seek support and representation from their Union in any grievance.

• If a member of staff had concerns about other aspects of the University’s management of research, including the identification of planned research outputs by individual members of staff, the support available through RPAs and UoAs, or the judgements of external reviewers, those concerns would also be pursued through the University’s normal grievance procedures. Again, these are detailed in the University’s staff handbook.

• As mentioned above in 2.1, there is no presumption that all academic staff will have a significant responsibility for research, and those who do have a significant responsibility for research, are considered eligible for the REF. Although we are not running processes to determine significant responsibility for research or researcher independence (as distinct from ‘eligibility’), staff will nonetheless have the opportunity to submit an appeal.

• For appeals about the decisions on Significant Responsibility for Research, Researcher Independence, and Selection of Outputs, the following applies:

• The individual making the appeal case must complete the REF2021 Appeal form (see Appendix 7), between between 1st November 2019 and 22 January 2021, or between 1st November 2019 and 31st January 2020 if the grounds for appeal are against the determination of significant responsibility for research or researcher independence;
  • The Appeal form is initially received by the Research Development Support Officer (Academic Development Unit);
  • The Appeal is considered by an RPA Convenor of a different RPA to the appellant, and will be completed where reasonably possible within 20 working days from receipt of the form.

The Review of Appeal is considered by the Dean of Academic Development, and will be completed within 10 working days from receipt of the notification of review request.

Equality impact assessment

The Equality Impact Assessment that underpins this Code is attached (see Appendix 1). We have compiled and reviewed all of the data we hold relating to the protected characteristics for our academic staff, distinguishing in each case between:

• Staff with, and without, significant responsibility for research;
• Staff who are, and are not, independent researchers;
• Staff by reference to assessed quality of outputs.

Where the data sizes are large enough to form a robust judgement, our conclusion is that there is no evidence of substantial imbalances indicating a pattern of inequality relating to a given protected characteristic. However, there are small numbers in many areas, reflecting the relatively small size of the University’s academic staff cohort, the relatively small number of those eligible for submission to the REF, an overall lack of diversity on some protected characteristics (notably BME) relative to our student community in Gloucestershire, and some small numbers self-declaring against some protected characteristics. So although we do not overall see significant equality impacts that we need to address specifically in relation to the REF, we will continue with our long term strategy for promoting equality and diversity across the University. 2.20. Although it is not a protected characteristic, there were in our early EIA disproportionate impacts in terms of staff categorised by working hours, with those working part time significantly less likely to be eligible than those working full time. Those working part time are approximately a third of our total academic staff. We undertook further work to understand what may be causing this apparent imbalance and the mitigating action we can take, and we are pleased to report that in our final EIA this impact has been attended to. Although the numbers are extremely small, we will also consider the pattern of eligibility within the different BME groups, as part of wider work within the University to understand and address BME issues across our community. For Disability, we must continue to ensure we remove any real or perceived barriers for those who would like to become Eligible for REF, but our data in the EIA are not suggesting a cause for concern. We have continued to monitor the equality impact assessment as we have prepared for REF.

Part 3: Determining research independence

Policies and procedures

• The University’s approach to identifying who is an independent researcher is consistent with the guidance in REF2018/01. The University’s Academic Career Pathways state expectations that are consistent with independence as a researcher for all staff at Grade 7 and above in the “teaching and research” and “research” pathways. The pathways have been published to all staff.

• The University has integrated within our academic grade structure expectations of research independence at relevant grades. Decisions on who is an independent researcher are therefore not taken independently and in isolation. They are a consequence of wider decisions about the appointment and promotion of academic staff to grades; and staff in those grades are then expected to demonstrate that they meet the criteria as independent researchers as described above.

• The University would not consider anyone appointed to Research Assistant posts to be an independent researcher.

In relation to the Early Career Research Network, the University organises regular seminars and events for all staff and students interested in research, regardless of grade, including events to help participants understand how to develop their research careers, the expectations of researchers at each level, and what constitutes high quality research. Through these means we are regularly ensuring that there is a strong shared understanding of good research practice.

Staff, committees and training 3.5. The staff, committees and training are the same as detailed in Part 2.

Appeals 3.6. The appeals process is the same as detailed in Part 2.

Equality impact assessment 3.7. See Part 2.

Part 4: Selection of outputs

Policies and procedures

• The selection of outputs is undertaken at Unit of Assessment (UoA) level.

• The context for the production of outputs is that, within the framework of the University’s annual SRD process described above, the individual academic member of staff discusses with their manager, their research objectives and plans for each year. Where that includes work towards a research output potentially eligible for submission to the REF, the Coordinator of the relevant UoA would discuss with the academic in more detail the nature and timing of the intended output and any further support that can be provided (e.g. attendance at relevant conferences, involvement in writing retreats, or sabbaticals). The intended output would be noted as part of the UoA’s log of potential outputs. Progress towards completion of the output will be monitored by the UoA Coordinator, with initial assessment of its likely quality.

• Once the output has been completed/accepted/published it is sent to the UoA External Adviser who has been appointed to review the quality of all outputs within that UoA. A central record is held of all indicative quality scores for each output as a result of External Review, and is regularly reported to the Research Committee.

• Decisions as to which outputs are submitted to the REF for each UoA are taken by the UoA Coordinator, in consultation with the relevant RPA Convenor, taking account of:

• the quality ratings provided by external reviewers for each output;
  • the minimum and maximum outputs required for each eligible member of staff with a significant responsibility for research;
  • equality and diversity considerations, including the disclosure of circumstances.

• Where two or more outputs have the same quality rating based on the externally provided rating, the judgement of the UoA Coordinator will be exercised as to which output represents the higher quality.

Where staff are dissatisfied with the decisions of the UoA Coordinator, they can make a case for an alternative output to be selected (see Appeals process for Part 2).

The University has logged outputs on our institutional research repository as they have been completed. In cases where the staff responsible for those outputs have subsequently left the University, including through redundancy, we intend to include such outputs within our submission where they otherwise meet our selection criteria. We believe this is consistent with the REF guidance, on the basis that the outputs were created while the staff were in the employment of the University, and as such, the University has a well-established right to claim those outputs.

Staff, committees and training 4.8. The staff, committees and training are the same as detailed in Part 2.

Staff circumstances

• As described above, all of the University’s procedures for the identification of staff and outputs to be submitted to the REF are rooted in the well-established Staff Review and Development (SRD) scheme and the ongoing review of progress by the RPA Convenors and UOA coordinators. This means that every member of academic staff has the same opportunity to discuss on a one-to-one basis with their manager their research aspirations, and to agree each year their objectives for research as appropriate. As part of those discussions, any member of staff can make known their personal circumstances and any implications for their agreed research objectives. It is part of the role and responsibility of UoA Coordinators, where they are notified of relevant staff circumstances, to take these into account in shaping their plans for the overall UoA submission.

• In addition, we are providing all members of staff the opportunity to voluntarily declare individual circumstances that may have affected their ability to research productively (whether or not they are currently considered eligible for REF). This information will allow us to establish whether there are any Units of Assessment where the proportion of declared circumstances is sufficiently high to warrant a request to the higher education funding bodies for a reduced required number of outputs to be submitted (including submitting staff with zero outputs).

• This will also allow us to establish whether there are any members of staff who currently do not have significant responsibility for research to declare circumstances that may have affected their ability to pursue their research ambitions as discussed in their SRD.

• Voluntary declarations of circumstances are invited from all members of staff from 1st November 2019, using the respective form (see Appendix 8). Once completed the form should be submitted via the following email address (HrRef2021@glos.ac.uk). Access to this inbox is restricted to selected staff within the HR team (Strategic HR Business Partner, Equality and Diversity Manager, and a Senior HR and Change Advisor). This information will not automatically be shared with the relevant UoA Coordinator. Only if it is considered that this information will impact on the overall UoA submission, the UoA Coordinator be informed about the potential impact, but not the circumstances themselves.

Voluntary declarations of circumstances will be considered by a UoG REF2021 Equality & Diversity Panel comprising:

• Director of HR (chair)
• Strategic HR Business Partner (vice-chair)
• Equality and Diversity Manager
• Senior HR and Change Advisor
• Advised by Dean of Academic Development
• Officered by Research Development Support Officer

The Panel also provides advice and guidance to Research Committee regarding the reporting of outcomes, and the further action required.

Equality impact assessment 4.15. See Part 2

Part 5: Appendices

View Appendices document here

Appendix 1: Equality Impact Assessment (final version – 16.03.21)

Appendix 2: Framework for line management and policy direction of research

Appendix 3: Research Committee: membership and terms of reference

Appendix 4: Overall Committee structure

Appendix 5: Role Description for RPA Convenor

Appendix 6: Role Description for UoA Coordinator

Appendix 7: REF2021 Appeal form

Appendix 8: REF2021 Voluntary Declaration of Circumstances