https://doi.org/10.36866/pn.124.10

Professor David Eisner, University of Manchester, UK

Dr Dan King, Research Consulting Ltd., Nottingham, UK

Tom Addison, Policy Manager, The Physiological Society

In October 2020 the then Science Minister, Amanda Solloway MP, announced a root-and-branch review of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) following the conclusion of REF 2021.

Among the reasons outlined by the Minister for the review were the need to “create ‘more quality time’ for research, build a culture that ‘recognises all contributions’, offer ‘clear accountability for public funding without…
complex bureaucracy’ and motivate researchers “to do diverse, creative and risk-taking work” (1).

The review of REF 2021 is occurring in front of the backdrop of the Government’s Innovation Strategy and R&D People and Culture Strategy. The R&D People & Culture Strategy in particular has been designed to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to co-create “a vision of the culture we want to see within the sector – working together to make lasting change happen so that researchers and innovators with diverse backgrounds and ways of thinking can thrive and do their best work here”(2).

While the collaborative atmosphere is primarily focused on encouraging equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) within the R&D People and Culture Strategy, there is certainly an opportunity to link the mission-led focus of the Innovation Strategy and the Life Sciences Vision with the collaborative nature of interdisciplinary research.

The Research Excellence Framework (REF) and its evaluation of interdisciplinary research

The REF provides accountability for public investment in research and demonstrates this research’s impact, benchmarks universities and the research they produce, and supports the allocation of about £2 billion of research funding.

The REF is a process of expert review, carried out by expert panels for each of the 34 subject-based units of assessment (UOAs) ranging from Agriculture, Food and Veterinary Sciences to Theology and Religious Studies. Expert panels are made up of senior academics and research users.

For each submission, three distinct elements are assessed: the quality of outputs (e.g. publications, performances, and exhibitions), their impact beyond academia, and the environment that supports research.

Since the REF is broken down by subject matter, there has been a long-standing concern that the process disadvantages interdisciplinary research, with researchers uncertain as to which UOA to return their research under and a concern that this makes their research less likely to be selected by their institution.

Following the last REF process in 2014, a major review of REF was undertaken by Lord Stern, and the terms of reference included options for:

• A simpler, lighter-touch method of research assessment that more effectively uses data and metrics while retaining the benefits of peer review; and

• Ensuring that a future process identifies and supports excellent research across the UK, including dynamic changes in research quality and emerging areas of research excellence.3

The Stern Review also made specific reference to the important contribution that interdisciplinary research makes “to addressing complex, intrinsically difficult Grand Challenges of global importance”.

Stern also noted, however, that

“Despite these perceived advantages the Call for Evidence revealed a sense that interdisciplinary
work was disadvantaged by the [2014] REF through the disciplinary ‘silos’ embodied in the Unit of
Assessment panel structures and that interdisciplinary work was often regarded less favourably than mono-disciplinary research. Such perceptions may have contributed to the relative underrepresentation of interdisciplinary outputs in Research Assessment Exercise (RAE)/ REF compared with the known proportion of such work”.3 To address this, Stern recommended that future REF cycles should explicitly encourage the submission and identification of interdisciplinary research in the REF and that there was a varied use of the interdisciplinary identifier by institutions, and some uncertainty around its purpose. Stern also noted that “if there continues to be a discrepancy between the proportion of interdisciplinary research undertaken and that submitted to the REF, consideration might be given in future exercises to giving extra weighting to outputs that are strongly interdisciplinary”.3

There is, therefore, recognition within UKRI that interdisciplinary research is at the very least perceived to face additional barriers within the REF process and appetite to ensure that these barriers are overcome where possible.

Why is this relevant to physiology?

Physiology is by nature an interdisciplinary science – understanding how fundamental processes, such as the control of heart rate or the sense of vision, work and interact with other systems in the body in good health to then understand how to respond to ill health. Ensuring that interdisciplinary science is fully recognised as part of the next REF process will not only support the prioritisation of physiology, but other interdisciplinary disciplines too.

The process of formulating The Physiological Society’s input into the next REF cycle began in January as we co-sponsored a roundtable with CaSE 4. Participants noted the centrality of interdisciplinary research to solving challenges of the present and the future but that significant challenges remained across science in terms of a lack of visibility in career opportunities and access to funding for interdisciplinary research.

Considering the future of REF for interdisciplinary research: Project overview

Following on from the findings of the CaSE workshop, The Physiological Society convened a group of organisations with an interest in interdisciplinary research from across the STEM sector, chaired by Professor David Eisner, a former President of The Society and former panellist for REF in 2014 and RAE in 2008.

The Society also approached Research Consulting, a consultancy firm specialised in improving the effectiveness and impact of research and scholarly communication, to help deliver the project. This meant analysing efforts to improve the position of interdisciplinary research in previous iterations of the RAE/REF process and reaching out to different stakeholders in the research community to assess the current landscape for interdisciplinary research. Further to this, Research Consulting has developed tangible recommendations in concert with the Steering Group to inform the consultation process for the next REF iterations.

Key findings and recommendations

In our report, The Future of Interdisciplinary Research Beyond REF 2021, we recommend that the next REF adopts a structure that explicitly identifies and rewards interdisciplinary research. This includes a mechanism in any future assessment exercise to allow flexibility to researchers whose outputs straddle current discipline-based assessment structures to be returned to multiple units, recognising the breadth of the research teams in which they operate, and the outputs generated from this.

We also recommend that REF outputs contain an option for additional narrative to explain the interdisciplinary context of research outputs. While at first it may appear that this recommendation runs counter to the Government’s current drive to reduce bureaucracy in R&D, our findings demonstrate that the value of interdisciplinary collaboration is not always obvious and extends beyond current output metrics. For The Physiological Society and other learned societies, we have recommended that they develop activities to support and facilitate the development of interdisciplinary collaborations with “near and far” disciplines and generate additional evidence on how interdisciplinary research shapes research careers. This collaboration could occur in both conference and journal planning and recognises the catalytic nature of interdisciplinary research to all the disciplines represented in a particular project.

The report also recommends further work to establish how greater understanding and characterisation of interdisciplinary research can be applied into wider practical use via a future research assessment cycle. In particular, the ”cognitive distance” between collaborating disciplines is a major factor in how difficult it is to collaborate when researchers come from different disciplines, requiring time to build a common language that enables effective collaboration, access funding and publish the work. For example, collaborations between research in animal and human health may be easier to explain, develop and attract funding for, compared to social science and chemistry and yet all four areas will be crucial in combatting the effects of climate change.

Finally, there also remains the significant challenge of ongoing perceptions among researchers of negative impacts on career development for researchers involved in interdisciplinary research. Despite these pervasive attitudes across disciplines, there is a lack of evidence that provides current data or evidence on this.

Report launch event

To launch the report’s findings, The Physiological Society organised a launch event in Parliament to discuss the fundings with the wider research community.

Unfortunately, owing to last-minute restrictions to public access to Parliament, we were unable to meet in person. However, an online launch was organised and can be found on The Society’s policy webpage.

References

1. University Business (2020). REF review must motivate ‘diverse, creative and risk-taking work’ – Solloway. Available at: universitybusiness.co.uk/research/ref-review-must-motivate-diverse-creative-and-risk-taking-work-solloway/
2. Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (2021). R&D People and Culture Strategy.
   Available at: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1004685/r_d-people-culture-strategy.pdf
3. Stern, Nicholas (2016). Building on success and learning from experience: an independent review of the Research Excellence Framework. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, London, UK. Available from: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/541338/ind-16-9-ref-stern-review.pdf
4. The Physiological Society (2021). Workshop on interdisciplinary research. Available at: physoc.org/policy/research-landscape-and-funding/caseroundtable/