Understanding the Research Excellence Framework and Its Evolution

The Research Excellence Framework (REF) serves as the United Kingdom's primary mechanism for evaluating the quality of research conducted in higher education institutions. Established to replace earlier systems like the Research Assessment Exercise, the REF has been carried out in cycles, with major assessments in 2014 and 2021, and the next iteration, REF 2029, on the horizon. At its core, the REF assesses research outputs, societal impacts, and the research environment within universities, directly influencing the allocation of approximately £2 billion in annual public funding.

In REF 2021, the evaluation criteria were weighted as follows: 60 percent on research outputs such as journal articles and books, 25 percent on real-world impacts, and 15 percent on the research environment. This structure aims to reward excellence while promoting accountability. However, the intense competition for top scores has inadvertently amplified pressures on academics, particularly in fields like business and management studies, where quantifiable metrics dominate.

Over time, the REF has evolved to address criticisms. For instance, REF 2029 introduces greater emphasis on research culture, equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), alongside measures to reduce individual-level burdens, such as decoupling research outputs from specific authors in some cases. These changes reflect growing recognition of the framework's unintended consequences on academic wellbeing and innovation.

The Surge of Pressure in UK Management Schools

Management schools across UK universities have become hotspots for REF-related tensions. In business and management studies—Unit of Assessment 17 in REF terminology—the 2021 results showcased impressive performances, with the University of Cambridge topping the rankings at a GPA of 3.67, followed closely by institutions like the London School of Economics. Yet, beneath these headlines lies a narrative of strain. Nearly doubled staff submissions from previous cycles (6,995 researchers in 2021) signal heightened institutional ambitions, but also escalating demands on individuals.

Academics report that school leaders prioritize publications in a select group of elite journals to secure high REF scores, believing this translates directly to funding gains. This target-driven approach mirrors corporate sales environments, where only specific metrics count, sidelining broader scholarly contributions.

Spotlight on the University of Liverpool Management School Case

A recent University and College Union (UCU) report from the University of Liverpool Management School exemplifies these issues. Based on responses from 78 staff members, the document highlights policies mandating publications in journals rated 3* or 4* by the Academic Journal Guide or listed in the Financial Times 50 (FT50)—prestigious outlets favored in business research.

Staff described a pervasive sense of apprehension, with success in these venues becoming the key to promotions, sabbaticals, and resources. One academic noted, "They deny promotions, sabbaticals, and anything else you might ask for if you don’t have an FT50 pipeline." Another likened meetings to sales targets: "FT50 journals are mentioned at every group meeting, regardless of your research area." This has fostered what the report terms a "toxic culture of fear," evidenced by high volumes of UCU casework.

The school defends its practices, stating FT50 publication is not a formal criterion and aligning with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which cautions against over-relying on journal metrics. Constructive dialogue with unions continues, but staff perceptions paint a different picture.
Read the full Times Higher Education coverage

Decoding the FT50 List and Elite Journal Obsession

The FT50 list, curated by the Financial Times, ranks 50 top business and management journals based on citations and editorial quality. While invaluable for benchmarking excellence amid hundreds of field-specific outlets, its dominance in UK management schools stems from a perceived REF correlation. A 2024 study in Research Policy confirmed that 4* journal publications strongly predict 4* REF outputs.

However, early-career researchers face steep barriers: long review times and rejection rates exceeding 90 percent in some FT50 titles. This delays knowledge dissemination and favors established scholars, perpetuating inequities. Alternatives like books, chapters, or interdisciplinary journals—vital for European-contextual research—are devalued, narrowing agendas toward North American paradigms.

• High rejection rates in FT50 journals disadvantage newcomers
• Long publication timelines hinder timely impact
• Exclusion of non-FT50 high-quality outlets limits specialist work

Restricting Research Diversity: A Growing Concern

The REF's output focus has constrained research diversity, pushing scholars toward dominant methodologies and topics amenable to elite journals. In management studies, this means prioritizing quantitative, generalizable work over context-specific, qualitative, or interdisciplinary inquiries relevant to UK and European challenges like sustainability or public policy.

UCU's Liverpool findings underscore how such policies contradict institutional DORA pledges and stifle innovation. Broader REF 2021 impact case studies revealed diverse societal benefits from UK research, yet the outputs metric incentivizes homogeneity. For those exploring academic careers amid these dynamics, resources like how to write a winning academic CV can help navigate publication strategies.

Manifestations of Toxic Culture in Academia

Toxic elements emerge as fear of reprisal, bullying, overwork, and isolation. Staff equate REF pursuits to a "sales environment," with metrics overriding mentorship or work-life balance. High UCU casework at Liverpool signals systemic issues, echoing wider UK higher education trends where managerialism amplifies pressures.

Quitting academics cite "toxic work environments" and leadership failures to address complaints, per Times Higher Education surveys. This erodes morale, with many viewing conditions as a "lost cause."

The Mental Health Toll on UK Academics

REF pressures exacerbate a mental health crisis. Reports like HEPI's "Pressure Vessels" document an epidemic, with counseling demands surging 293 percent at some institutions. Academics disclose increased stress, poor work-life balance, and reluctance to seek help amid overwork normalization.

Post-pandemic studies highlight frontline staff strains, linking metrics-driven cultures to burnout. In management schools, FT50 chases compound this, as long rejection cycles fuel anxiety.
Explore the HEPI report on staff mental health

REF 2021 Results: Triumphs and Hidden Strains

REF 2021 business and management outcomes celebrated highs—94 percent of LSE outputs rated 3* or 4*—but doubled staff numbers reflect intensified efforts. Institutions like Sussex (85 percent world-leading/internationally excellent) and Portsmouth (100 percent impactful) succeeded, yet at what cost? Underlying data hints at homogeneity in top-scoring outputs.

Diverse Stakeholder Perspectives

Unions like UCU decry biased systems; universities defend balanced evaluations; experts like Prof. Anna Morgan-Thomas of Glasgow advocate journal lists for practicality amid applicant volumes. REF panels push EDI, but implementation varies. For faculty job seekers, professor jobs listings offer outlets beyond pressured environments.

REF 2029 Reforms: Hope for Balance?

REF 2029 prioritizes research culture in environment assessments, mandates EDI data, and eases portability burdens. Decoupling outputs reduces 'game-playing,' potentially alleviating toxicity. Guidance emphasizes collective contributions, including enabling staff.
Official REF 2029 guidance

Solutions to Foster Healthier Research Ecosystems

Addressing REF pressures requires multifaceted action:

• Adopt DORA fully: Prioritize content over journal prestige
• Enhance REF environment scores for culture/wellbeing
• Support diverse outputs via funding incentives
• Invest in mentorship for early-career researchers
• Promote workload audits and mental health resources

Institutions embracing these see retention gains. Career advice at higher ed career advice emphasizes balanced portfolios.

Photo by Amanda Jones on Unsplash

European Context and Future Outlook

While UK-centric, REF influences European peers via collaborations. Countries like the Netherlands emphasize student employment post-graduation, contrasting REF's research focus. As REF 2029 unfolds, expect shifts toward sustainable cultures. UK academia's resilience promises renewal, benefiting global higher education.

Explore opportunities at higher ed jobs, university jobs, or rate experiences via rate my professor.