Skip to content
Chevron pattern Chevron alternate pattern

Research Strategy and Action Plan 2021-2028

Last updated: 17 November 2021

Version of 14 January 2021

Purpose and Scope

  1. This document sets out the University of Gloucestershire’s research strategy and action plan for the period 2021 – 2028.
  1. The timeframe of 2021 – 2028 has been chosen in order to map onto the expected phasing of the next Research Excellence Framework.  Although no announcements have yet been made about how and when any future REF exercise may be run, our working assumption for the purposes of this strategy is that submissions will be due in 2027, with results announced during 2028, and that the REF rules on outputs, impacts and ratings will remain broadly as now.  We have made that assumption because one purpose of this strategy and action plan is to guide the preparation of the strongest possible submission for the next REF.  However, the scope of this strategy goes wider than the REF, to encompass all research undertaken by the University.  Research is a primary function of the University, and achieving excellence in our research is a primary goal of the University, so we need clear strategic direction for our research programmes irrespective of future REF rounds.
  1. This document has been developed through a process of iterative discussion including meetings of the Research Committee, a seminar for the University’s research leaders, and discussion in the Council and the Academic Leadership Group.  It will inform the preparation of the University’s next overall strategic plan, which will be developed during 2021 for the period 2022 to 2027, along with the associated Academic Strategy.

Context

  1. The University’s current strategic plan for 2017 – 2022 states as our four primary goals:
  1. While this strategy is most obviously related to the third of these goals, it is also relevant to the other three:
  1. In recent years we have made good progress in building the scale and quality of our research activity, albeit from a very modest base.  In the 2014 REF exercise we submitted 56 research active staff to 6 units of assessment (UOAs).  44% of the University’s research was classified as world-leading or internationally excellent (3* or 4*).  Our Grade Point Average was 2.38, our “research power” rating was 134, and we were ranked equal 98th out of 129 HEIs for Grade Point Average[1].  Although that represented progress and a good outcome for the University, it was very small scale compared with the UK’s major research universities.
  1. In the period since then we have significantly developed the range of our research.   Our current expectation is that we will enter over 125 research active staff to 13 UOAs by the deadline of 31 March 2021 set for the 2021 REF.  So we have more than doubled the scale of our research activity during the past REF period.  Although we do not know what ratings will be given to our outputs, impact case studies and environment statements, our hope, based on assessments by expert external reviewers, is that around half of our outputs could be rated 3* or 4*. 
  1. During the same period we have doubled our contract research income from less than £700,000 per annum to £1.4 million per annum.
  1. These achievements reflected sustained hard work by academic colleagues across the University to pursue their own research, engage with colleagues in collaborative research, support the creation of a wide variety of research outputs, build research cultures, bid for funding, spread shared understanding of research methods and standards, and embed research as a core academic purpose of the University.  That commitment to building the University’s research profile has been impressive.
  1. Our aim in this new strategy is to build on these achievements, and make at least equivalent progress during the next REF cycle.
  1. We endorse the definition of research used in the Research Excellence Framework 2014: “a process of investigation, leading to new insights, effectively shared”.

[1] To give a sense of relative scale, UCL submitted 2,566 staff to the 2014 REF and their research power rating was 8,261.

Ambition, Goals and Success Indicators for Research

  1. We want to be a research-rich University.  The traditional descriptors of “research intensive” or “teaching led” do not work well for us as an expression of what we aspire to be.   So we should restate the goal in our University strategy as:

“To develop across the University a research-rich culture in which research is valued as a core purpose of the University, all teaching and learning is enriched through research, and all staff and students have opportunities to engage with high-quality research which creates benefit, impact and enhanced professional practice.”

  1. Within this goal, our research ambitions are that:
  1. If we set ourselves the strategic intent of making equivalent progress during the next REF cycle as we have during the previous cycle, that would imply adding up to 7 new Units of Assessment (ie potentially up to 20 out of 34 current UOAs), increasing the number of staff submitted up to around 200 (which would represent around half of our current academic staff[2]), and setting a quality target of two-thirds of our REF outputs being judged 3* or 4*. 
  1. Consistent with our wider goals and values as a University, we want all our research to lead to beneficial impacts and applications to professional practice, real world solutions and creative innovations.  We remain committed to practice as research, particularly in the arts and media.  We see a strong connection between research and professional development.  Much of our research is rooted in the community, encouraging community engagement in co-creation, and has a concern for social disadvantage and vulnerabilities.  Much of our research also reflects the University’s commitment to, and achievements in, sustainability.  Although this strategy is concerned with research and therefore aligned to the Research Excellence Framework, our focus on impact and application means there is an important connexion with our knowledge exchange and business and community engagement strategy, aligned to the Knowledge Exchange Framework.  We need to ensure that the two continue to complement each other, and that each evolves in a way that supports the other.  
  1. We want to make a reality of “research informed teaching” for students.  That must go beyond simply telling students about new research publications.  The primary purpose and benefit of integrating research in teaching across the curriculum is to promote in all students critical inquiry and critical thinking that enables them to be successful professional, creative and critical thinkers and practitioners, with an understanding of how to collect, analyse and apply evidence to create solutions.  Our Academic Strategy will continue to prioritise successful integration of teaching, learning and research to create a vibrant academic experience for students within a thriving academic subject community.
  1. We want to explore the potential for research activity that crosses traditional disciplinary boundaries, because we believe there is extensive scope in those cross-over areas for rewarding and innovative research activity.  As described below, we already apply a thematic approach in identifying our research priorities, deliberately not bounded by subject structures, and will continue to do so.  At the same time, we recognise that deep subject expertise is a pre-requisite of all successful University teaching and research, and that we will need to continue to align our research outputs to the subject-based definitions used for REF Units of Assessment.
  1. We do not want our research to operate in isolation, or in destructive tension with the University’s other goals.  Our central mission as a University remains rooted in service to our students and our community, enabling all our students to achieve their full potential and to progress to rewarding lives and successful careers.  Our research must complement and reinforce that mission, creating benefit for students and the community.  We do not want to create a hierarchy in which research is seen to have higher prestige and status relative to the value and recognition the University accords to teaching, support for student employability and welfare, professional connexion, and community partnerships.
  1. We will use the following indicators to assess progress in delivering this strategy:
  1. We do not intend to set a target for the number or proportion of UOG academic staff who should be research engaged in producing outputs suitable for the REF.  We believe that achieving high quality in our research is more important than driving up the quantity of our research.  We also believe we will be more successful if engagement in research flows from the enthusiasm, interest and professional ambitions of staff wishing to participate in research, rather than corralling the reluctant simply to meet a target.  We also do not wish to imply that there is a hierarchy of value or prestige, given the importance of the contributions colleagues make in other career pathways to other University priorities such as teaching, student employability, and technology enhanced learning.

[2] As at September 2020, the University employed 369 academic staff on permanent contracts and 65 on fixed term contracts, excluding part-time hourly paid staff.

Research Priority Areas and Units of Assessment

  1. In 2014 the University defined 6 “Research Priority Areas” (RPAs).  The scope of several has been adjusted over time, but they have remained broadly stable in thematic scope.  They are:
  1. Annex A contains the current mapping of RPAs to UOAs and to Schools.
  1. The RPAs were originally developed with the intention of identifying selected areas of research in which the University either already was excellent or had the potential to become excellent.  Their purpose was to provide a common and shared thematic framework to shape how academic colleagues could collaborate on research programmes, aligning their individual outputs to a shared purpose, and to guide university investment.  They were intentionally inter-disciplinary, crossing School and discipline boundaries.
  1. The consensus in recent discussions is that the RPA model has been effective and important as a mechanism for providing consistent research leadership.  It has served the University well and brought several benefits:
  1. On the cusp between two REF exercises, it is timely to revisit the scope of our RPAs.  They should align broadly with our academic portfolio, make meaningful connections between cognate subject areas, and reflect clusters of research interest, enthusiasm and expertise amongst our staff, all of which evolve over time.  Much has changed since the RPAs were first scoped in 2014.  For example, the rapid expansion of the University’s nursing and allied health taught programmes has created the potential capacity to build an aligned research programme.  We have recently created a new subject community in engineering, and we shall be introducing new courses in 2021 in biomedical sciences, architecture, construction and the environment which will further extend the base of academic expertise on which our research can draw.  
  1. So we should re-scope our Research Priority Areas for the period to 2028.
  1. The RPAs originally mapped onto 12 UOAs.  A 13th UOA was added in 2019 to recognise the successful growth of research in sociology.  So our current list of target UOAs for the 2021 REF is:
  1. Meanwhile, as noted above, the University’s teaching portfolio and the research and professional interests of our staff have continued to evolve.  This means that, as well as revisiting the scope of RPAs, we should review our target UOAs to ensure that we continue to target those which give us the best prospect of achieving good REF outcomes in 2028 with strong outputs and impact. 
  1. As we have seen with sociology, it is possible to decide quite late in the cycle to add further UOAs if a sufficient body of research outputs and impacts has been assembled.  But it is also important to plan well ahead for UOA submissions.  Being clear about target UOAs is important for establishing the thematic intent, character and centre of gravity for shared research activities, designing in impact and environment from the outset, and identifying potential research partners. 
  1. Given recent and proposed growth in our teaching programmes, potentially we could consider the following additional UOAs:
  1. Putting these various RPA and UOA considerations together, for the next phase of our research development we will re-scope RPAs and associated UOAs as follows:
RPAUOAs
Health, Life Sciences, Sport and Wellbeing3: Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy (and/or 2: Public Health, Health Services and Primary Care)
4: Psychology, Psychiatry, Neuroscience
24: Sport, Exercise, Leisure, Tourism
Applied Business and Technology12: Engineering (and/or 11: Computer Science and Informatics)
17: Business and Management Studies
Place, Environment and Community13: Architecture, Environment, Planning
14: Geography, Environmental Studies
Society and Learning20: Social Work and Social Policy
21: Sociology
23: Education
Culture, Heritage and Transmission27: English Language and Literature
28: History
31: Theology and Religious Studies
Creative Practice and Theory32: Art and Design: History, Practice, Theory
33: Music, Drama, Dance, Performing Arts, Film and Screen Studies
34: Communication, Cultural & Media Studies
  1. One merit of the RPAs as they have operated to date is that they have flexed and evolved.  So the RPA titles, and the mapping to UOAs, shown in the table are not immutable.  We will use them as an initial proposition as a basis for planning and shaping our research direction and programmes for the next six years, and they will evolve over that period.  As happened in the previous REF period, RPAs will be able to adapt both their title and their scope to meet changing needs and preferences.  RPAs can work together on shared interests: for example the RPAs on “Culture, Heritage and Transmission” and “Creative Practice and Theory” have a shared interest in humanity, arts and culture.  Research engaged staff will continue to be able to contribute to research programmes in any RPA to which their research is relevant, without being constrained by the School in which they are based for teaching.
  1. As the next step, RPA Convenors and UOA Co-ordinators will be asked to undertake an initial scoping of the strategic direction of research in their RPA or UOA.  RPA Convenors will also undertake an initial assessment of the prospects for developing credible submissions by 2027 in the potential new UOA areas identified above. 
  1. The current REF rules do not set any minimum threshold for the number of staff submitted to each UOA.  For the 2021 REF, UOG is not planning any submissions larger than 20 FTEs, and one is as small as 4 FTEs.  Small size is not of itself a problem if the quality of outputs is high.  But a small staff base can pose problems in assembling the required minimum 2 impact case studies, and it creates higher risk around staff turnover.  All UOA submissions need to be supported by a sufficient teaching base.  So RPA Convenors need to form a view early in the REF cycle about whether it is credible to develop enough research outputs, including outputs of 3/4* quality, and both impact and environment statements, to make a worthwhile UOA submission by the end of the cycle.

Research Leadership

  1. One consequence of the RPA and UOA structure is that the University has developed a cadre of senior research leaders in RPA Convenors and UOA Co-ordinators who add great value for the University.  Compared with previous REF periods, all of our Professors, Associate Professors and Readers are now expected to contribute to research leadership, and the creation of a set of dedicated and expert leadership roles has been successful and powerful in driving growth and progress.
  1. At present, they are roles, not posts, and they are not time limited.  Suitable individuals have been invited to take on the roles as vacancies have arisen.  Given the re-scoping of RPAs and target UOAs set out above, we will need to reconfirm existing, or appoint new, RPA Convenors and UOA Co-ordinators to give the best fit of research expertise, skills and interests, using an open, fair and transparent process that is consistent with our own REF Code of Practice.  This appointment process will be overseen by the University’s Senior Academic Appointments Panel.  Getting Convenors and Co-ordinators confirmed in their roles is an important first step so that the roleholders can then proceed with confidence to develop their scoping and strategic direction for their RPA/UOA to 2028. 
  1. It should be part of the RPA convenor and UOA coordinator role to keep under review emerging leadership talent in their research area as a form of succession planning.  The University’s annual Staff Review and Development programme for all staff provides the mechanism for colleagues to express an interest in this form of career development.
  1. At the same time, concerns have been raised that, by keeping research leadership outwith the School structure, it has been harder for some School leaders to ensure research is well integrated in the activities, business plans, budget allocations, staff recruitment, and workforce plans of each subject community and School.  This has led to varying levels of engagement by School management structures in objective setting and performance management relating to research.  Pages 30 and 31 in The University’s REF Code of Practice shows how the relationship between RPAs and Schools is intended to work. 
  1. To improve communication between RPAs, UOAs and Schools, in future Heads of School (or a nominated representative from the School Senior Management Team) should be members of relevant RPA steering groups, and similarly the RPA convenor and/or UOA coordinator should attend relevant meetings of School Senior Management Teams.  School Senior Management Teams should ensure that research regularly features on their agenda, and that RPA and UOA leads are engaged in those discussions.
  1. The Senior Academic Appointments Panel will continue to award the titles of Professor and Associate Professor on the basis of applications from suitable candidates (internal and external).  These awards will only be made for roles which have been identified by Schools as being needed within their leadership teams, mapped to the expectations in the relevant academic career pathway and supported by external references.  At present, the number of Professors and Associate Professors varies greatly between Schools, depending both on the scale and maturity of research activity in the School and on the School’s prioritisation of research leadership roles within the leadership team.  Over time, as we extend research activity across the University, we expect to level up the availability of research leadership roles carrying the Professor and Associate Professor title.
  1. Across RPAs the appetite to appoint Visiting Professors, Visiting Associate Professors and Visiting Fellows has varied.  This can be a useful way of adding research leadership capacity and networks.  It is something we encourage RPAs and UOAs to pursue, putting recommendations for appointment to the Senior Academic Appointments Panel. 

Identifying and Supporting Research Engaged Staff

  1. The University’s REF Code of Practice details how we identify those staff who meet the criteria for submission to the REF, in terms of being independent, engaged researchers.  It will remain important to us that we use the Code to ensure full application of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) principles in identifying and supporting research active staff.  The set of procedures contained in the Code has served us well during the past REF period in supporting a significantly higher number of staff to become research active, operating primarily through the annual Staff Review and Development programme and the support of UOA co-ordinators and RPA convenors. 
  1. This has enabled individual academics to take the initiative in identifying whether they do, or don’t, wish to develop their research careers, recognising that at UOG we need to give equivalent support and recognition to a variety of career goals and contributions including excellence in teaching and professional practice as well as research.  As set out in the UOG Academic Career Pathways, it will remain important that we appoint, value and recognise staff who can contribute well to the whole range of University goals for teaching, learning, professional networks and employability, with no presumption that academic staff must be research active in the sense of being REF-engaged and developing outputs for REF submission. 
  1. In each recruitment exercise for a new member of academic staff, it will be for the recruiting manager to determine what to say about requirements for research qualifications and track record in the advertisement and job description, depending on the balance of contribution they need to teaching, student support, employability, professional practice and other School goals as well as research.
  1. The University has committed to the Concordat on the career development of researchers, which gives us a strong framework for supporting research active colleagues, including early career researchers, while applying EDI principles.  We will continue to apply an expectation that all staff who wish to be research active have the capacity to achieve high quality research outputs which will be eligible for the REF, while recognising the need to support staff to develop their research skills and capability over time, including through coaching and mentoring.  We support the work of our Early Career Researcher Network, which is represented on the Research Committee.
  1. One area of our current practice that is too patchy and variable is the engagement of RPA and UOA leads in staff recruitment and in SRDs.  If RPA convenors and UOA co-ordinators are to work with line managers in supporting staff to develop their research careers and produce high quality research outputs, there needs to be a closer link to the discussions that should be happening in annual SRDs about research ambitions and objectives in the case of research-engaged staff.  However, at present, it is not clear that SRDs are being used in this way for many staff.  It is a priority to ensure that all academic staff who are, or wish to be, research active can discuss their research ambitions and plans at least annually with their manager and with the relevant RPA and UOA leads as a basis for agreeing the outputs they should deliver and the support and mentoring they need in any SRD period.  This is particularly important for Early Career Researchers.
  1. It is already a requirement that new academic staff who do not already have a teaching qualification should undertake the Academic Professional Apprenticeship, with the PG Certificate in Academic Practice as the knowledge award.  That academic development programme can include training in research as well as teaching skills, and the University will enrol suitable new members of staff on our Masters in Research (MRes) programme.  This offer for our new staff will embrace fully both the UK Professional Standards Framework and Advance HE Fellowships, and the Vitae Career Development for Researchers framework that is core to the Concordat.  The University also supports academic staff to undertake Doctoral study where they wish to do so and can commit to successful and timely completion.
  1. In recruiting new academic staff, we will continue to apply the presumption that people should be appointed to the Teaching and Scholarship Academic Career Pathway, unless a specific case is made to appoint to the teaching and research pathway.  Wherever academic staff then develop their research engagement and produce REF-relevant research outputs, we will switch job family by agreement to the Teaching and Research Pathway, as we have done in preparing for the REF 2021.

Research Funding

  1. One area that needs attention during the period to 2028 is securing research funding contracts.  At present performance is very patchy across UOAs.  Some have secured substantial research funding, others virtually none.  As a University, we have been over-dependent on EU research funding (Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020), given the expectation that following BREXIT, UK universities will no longer be able to bid in their own right for Erasmus+ research funding. 
  1. We need both to level up performance across UOAs in securing research funding, and diversify away from EU programmes.  We need stronger incentives, support and performance management to promote successful research bidding.  In the Countryside and Community Research Institute (CCRI) and the University Funding Office, and in some UOAs, we have some expert capacity in research bidding.  As and when resources allow, we should strengthen that capacity and provide support for colleagues in developing the skills of successful bid writing, with workshops to share experience of successful bidding.  The day of the individual researcher successfully securing individual research grants is largely over, and we need to build our capacity for bidding at scale, and in partnership with other Universities, particularly for Research Council funding.  RPAs have an important role in putting together collective research bids, and bidding partnerships, of that type.
  1. By far the largest investment the University makes in research is in the form of staff time agreed through SRDs and WAMs.  We also allocate to RPAs and UOAs the QR grant funding allocated to us by UKRI/OfS based on previous REF performance, amounting to about £700,000 per year for the previous REF cycle.  Each RPA produces proposals for spending its allocation, which are approved by the Research Committee.  Typically, they will be spent on things such as staff sabbaticals, the appointment of research assistants, presenting at conferences, and organising writing retreats.  During the past REF period, our QR income has been used to support growth in research quality and outputs, irrespective of the rating achieved by that UOA in the previous REF. 
  1. Hopefully that QR grant funding will increase if we do secure an improvement in our research ratings in REF 2021; and that will increase the money we can invest in supporting existing and new research capacity for the next REF.  We may want to use some of that funding to build up the capacity for research bidding or for other forms of investment in building new research capacity.  We would expect the formula for allocating funds to RPAs to continue to take account of the number of research active staff, and the number of research outputs assessed by external reviewers at 2*, 3* and 4*, seeking to balance considerations of volume and quality. The re-scoped RPAs will again be asked to prepare proposals for using their formula funding allocations in order to create the best foundation for continued progress over the period to 2028.
  1. We have achieved real success in some UOAs (notably Applied Business and Technology and Learning and Professional Contexts) in securing EU funding that has supported important work in applied research development and the creation of international applied R&D partnerships and networks.  That should remain an important part of our wider research strategy, albeit that it does not necessarily lead to lots of REF-able outputs, and that Erasmus+ funding will not be available in the next period.  Being active in applied R&D consortia with partners is likely to become increasingly important as an aspect of the post-BREXIT and post-pandemic industrial strategy and economic recovery programme.

Research Centres

  1. The University has in the past established a variety of Research Centres.  Some have real organisational substance: our leading example is the Countryside and Community Research Institute.  Others are largely a marketing tool with a website presence.  We do not need to designate Research Centres as a way of co-ordinating activity in a given research area, because that function is carried out by RPAs.
  1. It is good practice to review Research Centres periodically, and close those which have no real substance.  In recent years, we have greatly improved the way our research is presented through our website and in our research repository, but ongoing development is needed, both to raise the profile of the excellent research we do and to inform potential PGR applicants about the scope of our research.  

Research Culture and Environment

  1. In the past REF period, RPA and UOA leads have had the primary role in developing a supportive research culture, developing annual plans for their respective research areas.  Post Graduate Research Leads (PGRLs) in each School have had the specific role of developing and implementing action plans for PGR students in their Schools.  
  1. This Framework has successfully developed a stronger research culture, in some cases from scratch since 2014.  We will need to apply the same methods in developing any new UOA submissions from scratch for 2027/8.
  1. Some Schools and Subject Communities recruit much larger numbers of PGR students than others.  The Business School is the outlier, with a very large and successful programme of DBA and Business PhD students totalling some 300 students.  Those students are largely part time and highly dispersed (many being in Germany, Austria and the Gulf States), making it difficult to create a tightly engaged research culture.  Other Schools have introduced professional doctorates, but some on a small scale, making it difficult to develop peer cohort identity.
  1. Within its overall student number targets, each School needs to set targets for PGR recruitment and ensure it has a PGR subject offer that is attractive to applicants.  That will include considering options for developing and delivering high quality online and distance PGR programmes, building on our experience both of the DBA and the rapid application of online technologies during the Coronavirus pandemic to create excellent and engaging learning materials and environments.  PGRLs will continue to play a key role in the recruitment of, and support for, PGR students.  The Head of Postgraduate Research and Chair of Research Degrees Committee, Professor Nigel McLoughlin, will co-ordinate the work of the PGRLs and the development and delivery of an annual action plan for post-graduate research.
  1. Many other Universities make extensive use of PGR students to support both teaching and research programmes, to such an extent that there is concern in some cases about exploitation.  There are examples in the School of Computing and Engineering of offering PGR students a package of support which enables them to combine working towards their Doctorate with teaching support and demonstration work to provide professional development and some income.  Similarly, within the Environmental Dynamics and Governance RPA, PGR students are involved in teaching and presenting.  Nonetheless, the University could do a lot more to value, and create valuable experiences and opportunities for, our PGR students. 
  1. When we advertise for funded PGR studentships, and when we award places to PGR students, regardless of whether they are in receipt of a studentship or self-funded, we should state clearer, stronger expectations about their contribution to collective research activity and culture, for example:
  1. That would support PGR students in building up their skills and confidence in a developmental way.  We should also look at further possibilities in support of early career academics, and how we include PGR students within those opportunities for networking and development.  The University has set aside space on each of our teaching campuses for PGR students where they can work and socialise together, but we need to do more to create a sense of community for our PGR students.  This may be online as well as on campus.
ACTIONOWNER
  
Reflect the research strategy in the next iteration of the University corporate strategy for 2022 – 2027Finance and Planning
Incorporate research actions and indicators in annual University operating planFinance and Planning
Appoint Convenors for re-scoped RPAsADU/SAAP
Appoint Co-ordinators for target UOAsADU/SAAP
New RPA Convenors to determine scope and direction of new RPAs and reform RPA steering groupsRPA Convenors
New UOA Coordinators for the existing 13 UOAs to determine scope and direction of UOAUOA Coordinators
New RPA Convenors to scope prospects for development of a credible submission for each new target UOA, in cases where the University did not make a submission to that UOA in 2021RPA Convenors
Each RPA to draw up annual action plan for development of the RPA and its UOAsRPA Convenors
Each RPA to draw up annual plan for spending its funding allocation to support development of the RPA and its UOAsRPA Convenors
Each RPA to review existing Research Centres within scope, and decide whether existing Centres should continue or new Centres be createdRPA Convenors
RPA Steering Groups to include Heads of School or SMT representativeRPA Convenors
School Senior Management Teams to include RPA/UOA leads for relevant agenda itemsHeads of School
RPA/UOA leads to engage with ASLs in using SRDs to agree research objectives and support for all research active staffHR
RPAs to develop plans for research contract funding bidsRPA Convenors
Following REF 2021/22 outcomes, review scope to increase central capacity to support more ambitious research biddingADU/UFO
Following BREXIT, review sources of future research fundingUFO
Schools to review annually research leadership roles within their leadership teamsHeads of School
RPAs to review use of Visiting Professors/Associate Professors/Fellows; and make proposals for new appointments to the Senior Academic Appointments PanelRPA Convenors
For each academic recruitment, recruiting manager to determine the weight given to research in the job description and person specificationHR/recruiting managers
Support new research active academics to develop skills through Academic Professional Apprenticeship and MResHR
Support work of Early Career Researcher NetworkADU
Annual review of progress in implementing the University’s commitments on the Concordat for Research Career DevelopmentADU
Agree with Schools annual targets for recruitment of PGR studentsFinance and Planning
Develop and deliver annual action plan for postgraduate research, developing PGR culture and cohort identityHead of Post Graduate Research, with School PGR leads
PGR students to be given opportunities for demonstration, teaching and research contributionPGR supervisors
Develop UOG website to give greater profile to research and support PGR recruitmentCMSR
Develop UOG repository to give greater profile to research and increase citationsLTI

ANNEX A: Mapping of RPA to UoA to Subject to School and Leadership:  REF 2021

School  Subject Community  UoA (for 2021)RPA
Arts  Design32 (Art & Design)CPR BH
ArtsArt32 (Art & Design)CPR BH
Arts  Photography32 (Art & Design)CPR BH
ArtsPerforming Arts32 (Art & Design)CPR
ArtsConstructed Environments32 (Art & Design)CPR
Business  Business, Entrepreneurship and Financial Management17 (Business)  ABT
Business  Marketing, Events & Law17 (Business)  ABT
Computing and EngineeringTechnical & Applied Computing12 (Engineering)ABT
Computing and EngineeringCreative Computing12 (Engineering)ABT  
Computing and EngineeringEngineering Technologies12 (Engineering)ABT  
Education & Humanities  Humanities27 (English) 28 (History) 31 (Theology)BH
Education & Humanities  Education23 (Education)  LPC
Education & Humanities  Teacher Education23 (Education)  LPC
Health & Social Care  Social Work & Social Care23 (Education)LPC
Health & Social Care  Nursing23 (Education)  LPC  
Health & Social Care  Allied Health Professions23 (Education)LPC
Media  Film & Television34 (Coms & Media)CPR BH
Media  Music and Sound  34 (Coms & Media)CPR BH
Media  Journalism and Communications34 (Coms & Media)CPR BH
Natural & Social Sciences  Environmental Sciences14 (Geography)  EDG
Natural & Social Sciences  Social Sciences21 (Sociology)EDG
Natural & Social Sciences  Psychological Sciences4 (Psychology)  SEHW
Natural & Social SciencesCCRI (staff affiliation)13 (Architecture)  EDG
Sport & Exercise  Applied Sport & Exercise Sciences24 (Sport)SEHW
Sport & Exercise  Sports Leadership, Education & Society24 (Sport)SEHW

RPA Convenors and Budget Holders:

Research Priority Area (RPA)  RPA Convenors  RPA Budget authorisation
Applied Business & Technology (ABT)Prof Neil TowersProf Kamal Bechkoum
Being Human: Past, Present & Future (BH)Prof Nigel McLoughlinDr Graham Parton
Creative Practice as Research (CPR)Angus PryorAngus Pryor
Environmental Dynamics & Governance (EDG)Chris ShortDr Caroline Mills & Prof Janet Dwyer
Learning & Professional Contexts (LPC)Dr Adeela ahmed Shafi & Dr Paul VareDr Graham Parton
Sport, Exercise, Health & Wellbeing (SEHW)Dr Emily RyallProf David James

UoA Codes and UoA Coordinators:  REF 2021

REF 2021 UoA codes  Coordinator
04 – Psychology, Psychiatry and NeuroscienceProf Graham Edgar  
12 – EngineeringProf Shujun Zhang  
13 – Architecture, Built Environment and PlanningProf Paul Courtney  
14 – Geography and Environmental StudiesProf Frank Chambers  
17 – Business and Management StudiesDr Philippa Ward  
21 – SociologyDr Jonathan Hobson & Dr Kenny Lynch
23 – EducationDr Adeela ahmed Shafi & Dr Paul Vare
24 – Sport and Exercise Sciences, Leisure and Tourism  Prof Mark De Ste Croix
27 – English Language and LiteratureProf Nigel McLoughlin & Prof John Hughes
28 – HistoryProf Melanie Ilic  
31 – Theology and Religious StudiesProf Phillip Esler  
32 – Art and Design: History, Practice and TheoryDr Andrew Bick  
34 – Communication, Cultural and Media Studies, Library and Information ManagementDr Abigail Gardner  

Was this article helpful?