Sacked academics face an unjustifiable ¡°restraint of trade¡± if they are prevented from entering outputs for a new employer into the next Research Excellence Framework (REF), senior researchers in the creative arts industries have argued.

In the latest criticism of proposed new rules around the ¡°non-portability¡± of outputs for REF 2029, a joint letter from six UK performing arts subject associations claims ¡°individual researchers will find their careers in limbo or potentially ended if their current institution retains their outputs for REF submission at the end of their employment¡±.

In the , the chairs of British Association of Film, Television and Screen Studies (BAFTSS), DanceHE, DramaHE, the Royal Musical Association, the Society for Dance Research and the Theatre and Performance Research Association urge the REF¡¯s director Rebecca Fairbairn to ensure ¡°any negative unintended consequences¡± from rule changes are ¡°mitigated¡±.

The concerns ¨C also raised recently by the heads of English associations ¨C relate to proposed new rules which allow institutions to retain a researcher¡¯s outputs if they were employed within the two-year REF census period, even if they have subsequently left that institution.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

With researchers in arts and humanities often having only one or two longer-form outputs in any given REF window, their inability to submit these outputs for a second new employer within the census window puts them at a major disadvantage in the job market, critics claim.

Campus resource: Don¡¯t let the REF tail wag the academic dog

That is increasingly important given the ¡°UK higher education sector is in an extended ¨C and for some existential ¨C crisis¡± with ¡°arts and humanities especially impacted¡± by ¡°restructure, voluntary severance or redundancy rounds¡±, explains the latest letter from subject heads.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

It asks that ¡°due consideration is given to output portability so that past and present employers within a census period may each claim a link to a researcher¡¯s published outputs (within an agreed number of years following publication)¡±.

¡°We believe the removal of output portability represents restraint of trade,¡± it continues, stating this situation will ¡°hamper sector mobility, as new hires with non-submissible REF outputs represent a suboptimal proposition for any new employing institution.¡±

Rules on non-portability were introduced for the last REF to address fears that institutions were gaming the system by hiring star professors?with four-star outputs on fractional contracts. However, critics have claimed the new rules around decoupling of staff from outputs?and the non-portability of outputs within the new census window have unfairly removed scholars¡¯ bargaining power in favour of institutions.

This is likely to particularly affect those on short-term contracts, explains the latest letter, noting the ¡°negative impacts on universities¡¯ responsibilities to equity, diversity, and inclusion, as it will have asymmetrical impact on careers dependent on types of contract, and who hold such contracts¡±.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

To reduce the risk of universities sacking staff but claiming their outputs for the REF, institutions should be required to ¡°declare in their REF2029 submission the number of staff (headcount and full-time equivalent) who have left under such conditions¡±, the letter adds.

In a statement a Research England spokeswoman said REF 2029 policy was ¡°under active development and will be published in spring/summer 2025¡±.

¡°The UK¡¯s higher education funding bodies are aware of the concerns in the sector and the REF team is engaging widely as we develop this policy,¡± she added, noting however that funders had ¡°committed to fully breaking the link between individual staff members and submitted outputs in the initial decisions [on REF 2029] and we are working with the sector to develop the policy around this.¡±

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com