The Higher Education Policy Institute, an independent think-tank on HE and university-related policy issues, has released a critique of HEFCE’s REF consultation. The main criticism is aimed at the “experimental” use of economic and social impact to judge research quality. HEPI is particularly concerned at the large proposed role of impact assessment – 25% of the overall mark in the current consultation – and the fact that it explicitly excludes academic impact:

Despite drawing the definition of ‘impact’ very widely, to include economic, social, public policy, cultural and quality of life impacts, aspects of the proposals need to be rethought. As they stand at present, the historian that does good but not extraordinary work on Henry VIII could be valued more highly, if he presents a television series on the subject, than his colleague who spends 17 years producing a book that changes the way that historians see their subject, but which does not have wider impact beyond the academic community.

The critique also argues that, while the overall shift towards citation-informed peer review in the REF is welcome, the proposal to use citation information at the level of the individual output should be dropped. HEFCE’s reduction of the number of Units of Assessment from 66 to 30 is also singled out: HEPI argues that this may reduce burden and workload but at the expense of compromising academic integrity of the exercise.