91茄子

Patrick Vallance hits pause on Research Excellence Framework

Science minister announces review of controversial changes to research environment assessment

Published on
September 4, 2025
Last updated
September 5, 2025
Source: DSIT/Flickr

Science minister Patrick Vallance has announced the next Research Excellence Framework (REF) will be paused for three months to review whether its allocation of ?2 billion annually in block research funding will support the government’s economic and social missions.

The?move is likely to have implications for the exercise’s expanded efforts to measure and reward research culture.

Vallance told vice-chancellors?at Universities UK’s annual conference at the University of Exeter on 4 September?that the freeze will scrutinise changes announced as?initial decisions in June 2023, with some decisions officially?confirmed by the REF’s organisers?in June.

“The REF promotes excellence; it allows demonstration of what’s happened with they money…It needs to be a credible assessment of quality,” said Vallance, who explained he had agreed the pause with new chief executive of UK Research and Innovation Ian Chapman, and the heads of devolved research funding bodies.

91茄子

ADVERTISEMENT

“We must make sure that we get it right. We must make sure that it does measure the things that we know we want to measure, and it doesn’t get bound down by measuring things that don’t actually impact on what we’re trying to understand,” Vallance continued.

Alluding to new elements of the REF, he continued: “You don’t want this to be more complicated than it has to be, and there must be ways to make sure that we can get this right.”

91茄子

ADVERTISEMENT

The decision to?increase the weighting?of the “people, culture and environment” (PCE) section from 15 per cent in REF 2021 to 25 per cent in REF 2029, with assessment of outputs reduced from 60 per cent to 50 per cent, is likely to face considerable scrutiny under the review.

The review is likely to cause major disruption across the sector, affecting the recruitment of experts for the REF panels and the selection of some chairs of REF subgroups.

The review will not push back the?publication of REF decisions in December 2029?but it is likely to accelerate the timetable of some aspects of the REF, whose results were initially due to be published at the end of 2028 prior to a year-long delay being announced in December 2023.

Changes to those weighting decisions for REF 2029 have been welcomed by some universities but have faced intense criticism from Russell Group university leaders who believe the decision to diminish the importance of outputs assessment undermines the credibility of the exercise and will be politically damaging.

91茄子

ADVERTISEMENT

University leaders have also raised questions about how?PCE can be assessed robustly?using metrics; pilot studies initiated by Research England and the REF’s other organisers – the devolved research funding bodies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – are believed to have disappointed sector figures.

Results of the pilot studies are??but some have questioned how excellence in PCE can be robustly measured, and whether some universities are?more disadvantaged?to compete on this front than others.

Speaking ahead of his retirement as principal of the University of Glasgow next month, Anton Muscatelli recently told?Times Higher Education: “If we are worried about research culture, having a good research environment should be a condition of funding. It should become a regulatory issue; does research funding go to those institutions who do not reach certain standards related to research culture?”

“I don’t believe you can score a set of metrics on research culture; what does it mean if an institution gets a 3.2 grade point average (GPA) in the REF on research culture and another one gets a 3.5 GPA? Can we really score research culture and environment in this way and award funding on this basis?” said Muscatelli, a former chair of the Russell Group who has led Glasgow since 2009.

91茄子

ADVERTISEMENT

Muscatelli, who is not attending the UUK conference, has previously called for a pause on the REF while the PCE elements were considered. “If you are going to go there, you should pilot it first. When the REF introduced impact this is what we did but we are much more concerned about PCE than we were about impact.”

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (6)

I agree with AM on this. It does seem to me to be an odd decision on PCE and really this is not a research excellence issue. Of cousrse gradings on PCE would be vulnerable to judicial review now in a way that gradings for oputputs would not be. But once again, we are told that resource in the sector is tight and we have a financial crisis but the sector is spending hand over fist on this bloated and suspect exercise. Surely all this could be done better with reduced targetted resource. Why can't there be a review which looks at the enormous resource expended on the excercise for the results it achieves. Any sane administrator could cut the cost by 50% without even trying, but so many have so much invested in the current system for their personal or institutional gain
I have to agree and if these are the right changes (a big if) why did they not institute them decades ago? It's as if every excercise is deeply flawed and throws up anolmalies and unintended consequences (which have real world consequences for us) so they have to bring in some radical changes to patch it up and make it look as if iot is working. If you make such changes then you are admitting de facto that the previous results on which funding was based, were simply wrong. But those running the exercise at UKRI and within individual institutions are so in hock to the whole thing this is the only way they can continue with it
If we scaled down the REF how would those legions of PVCs of Research, Deans and Associate Deans of Research, School Research Directors, and all the army of Panel Chairs etc etc with theor varioous buyout and secondments justfy their salaries? They might actually have to do a bit more teaching and bring down our burgeoning class sizes and actuaslly do something to improve the student experience and help theor colleagues, but I don;t think that's likely somehow?
Patrick hits the panic button! Something's up. Someone has blundered?
Well it does not inspire one with confidence does it, that's for sure!
new
PCE is a lot of bureaucratically generated fairy stories which don't impress subject panels. Academics have little real input and they tend to get overruled by managerial boosterism. Give max 10% for a few basic indicators of income and activity and dump the rest.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT