University of Essex REF 2014: Code of Practice on the Selection of Staff

• Introduction and Background

  The University is required by the Higher Education Funding Council for England to develop, document and apply a Code of Practice to ensure fair and transparent processes for the selection of staff for inclusion in our Research Excellence Framework (REF) submissions. The purpose of the Code of Practice is ‘to aid institutions in including all their eligible staff in submissions who are conducting excellent research, as well as promoting equality, complying with legislation and avoiding discrimination’^[1]

  This Code of Practice has been produced following discussion amongst the University Steering Group (USG)^[2], the Research Strategy Committee (RSC), the Equality and Diversity Committee, the Director of Human Resources and with University staff through the University and College Union (UCU). It was approved by the USG, the RSC and Senate during the Summer Term 2012.

  On making our submission, the Vice-Chancellor will confirm adherence to this Code of Practice.

  ^[1] REF 2014: Assessment Framework and Guidance on Submissions (Ref REF 02.2011), July 2011, p. 34, para. 187. For details of ‘eligible staff’ see Appendix 5 of this document.

  ^[2] Membership includes the Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellors, the Registrar and Secretary, the Director of Finance and the Director of Communications and External Relations.

• Legislative context

  This Code of Practice has taken into account the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 (see Appendix 1 for details) and relevant employment law and should be read in conjunction with the University’s Equality Policy and Strategy 2011-14. As such, we will ensure that we do not discriminate unlawfully against individuals on the grounds of:

  • Age
  • Disability
  • Gender reassignment
  • Marriage and civil partnership
  • Pregnancy and maternity
  • Race
  • Religion or belief
  • Sex
  • Sexual orientation

• The University Equality and Diversity Policy Statement

  ‘The University of Essex recognises the value of diversity and is committed to equality of opportunity within the University. We expect students and staff to be treated with dignity and respect and solely on the basis of their merits, abilities and potential, regardless of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, socio-economic background, political beliefs and affiliations, family circumstances or other irrelevant distinction.’

  We will seek to avoid discrimination on the grounds of any protected characteristic mentioned in the University Equality and Diversity Policy Statement, which includes those mentioned in the Act.

• The Basic Principles

  Our Code of Practice is based on the following four principles:

  Transparency:

  This Code clearly explains the processes related to the selection of staff for inclusion in our REF submissions. In addition to circulating it to all academic and research staff, including those absent from work, the Code has been made available on the University’s REF website and can be produced in an alternative format, for example in large print or on disc, if requested from Sarah Manning-Press (Tel: +44 1206 873561; email: sarahm@essex.ac.uk).

  Consistency:

  The four basic principles will be applied to all aspects and stages of the staff selection process. The RSC will have responsibility for ensuring this consistency of application across the University.

  Inclusivity:

  Every member of academic staff whose contract requires them to engage in research (i.e. academic staff on A+R contracts) will be eligible to be included in the 2014 REF submission. In addition, research staff in post on the census date and who meet the Funding Councils’ definition of independent researchers will be eligible. Eligible individuals will be selected for inclusion on the basis of the quality of their research taking into account the relevant main and sub-panels published criteria and working methods, including those relating to individual staff circumstances.

  Accountability.

  The Research Strategy Committee (RSC) will act as the REF Steering Group (see Appendix 4 for their Terms of Reference). The RSC will have responsibility for developing the REF submission and for the selection of staff and of outputs to be included in the submission, based on information provided by individual members of staff and their department.

• Communication

  During the Summer term the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) held a series of meetings with all departments at which he explained the process and timetable for the development of the Code of Practice on the Selection of Staff, the purpose of the Code and the process for disclosing individual staff circumstances. He encouraged staff to consider whether they had individual staff circumstances to disclose and explained that it would always be in the University’s interests to view such disclosures sympathetically.

  Following the meeting of Senate on 4 July 2012 at which the Code of Practice was approved, an invitation was sent, both electronically and in hardcopy to departmental addresses, to all staff potentially eligible for selection asking them to complete an ‘Individual Staff Circumstances Disclosure’ form about their individual circumstances (see Appendix 7). The invitation contained a link to the Code of Practice on the University REF website. In addition, all eligible staff on leave of absence, maternity leave, research leave or sick leave were sent a copy of the invitation to their home address.

  At the review meetings with the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) and the relevant Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor to be held in late October or early November 2012, Heads of Department and departmental Research Directors will be asked to remind colleagues when they feed back the results of the review about the Code of Practice and the invitation to disclose individual staff circumstances.

• The Research Strategy Committee

  The RSC is a Committee of the Senate of the University, chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise).

  The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise), who is appointed from the academic staff by the University’s Council on the nomination of the University’s Senate, has responsibility for all aspects of the University’s policy and strategy on research.

  Members of the RSC are senior members of the academic staff selected on the basis of relevant experience in research and international recognition of their personal research. All members of the RSC are experienced at assessing research within and beyond their own personal disciplines.

  The membership of the RSC is:

  • Professor Neil Cox, School of Philosophy and Art History
  • Dr Pam Cox, Dean of the Graduate School and Department of Sociology (until 31 December 2012)
  • Professor Anthony Forster, Vice-Chancellor (from 6 August 2012)
  • Professor Marco Francesconi, Department of Economics
  • Professor Hani Hagras, School of Computer Science and Electronic Engineering
  • Professor Edward Higgs, Department of History
  • Dr Janice Pittis, Director of the Research and Enterprise Office
  • Professor Colin Riordan, Vice-Chancellor (until 5 August 2012)
  • Professor Debi Roberson, Department of Psychology (from 1 August 2012)
  • Professor David Sanders, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) and Department of Government [Chair]
  • Professor Christine Temple, Department of Psychology
  • Professor Graham Underwood, School of Biological Sciences
  • TBA, Dean of the Graduate School (from 1 January 2013)

• Equality Training

  All staff involved in the selection of staff for inclusion in the REF submission will have appropriate training on equality and diversity in order to ensure that they have a suitable level of understanding of the Equality Act 2010, the University’s Equality Policy and Strategy 2011-14 and this Code of Practice. There will be two distinct elements to the training. The first is general equality training; all relevant staff will be required to complete the University’s online Equality and Diversity Essentials training package which outlines the basic concepts of equal opportunities and diversity and gives an overview of the Equality Act 2010. The second is face-to-face equality training which has been specifically tailored to the REF processes. This training will include an overview of the University’s Equality Policy and Strategy 2011-14 and will use case studies to explore issues such as the implications of dealing with personal circumstances in the process of selecting staff for inclusion in the submission.

• Individual Staff Circumstances

  All staff potentially eligible for selection will be asked in July 2012 to complete an ‘Individual Staff Circumstances Disclosure’ form about their individual circumstances (see Appendix 7). These will be reviewed by the REF Individual Staff Circumstances Review Group to ascertain whether there is evidence to support a reduction in the number of research outputs required in order to be selected for inclusion in the REF submission. The membership of the REF Individual Staff Circumstances Review Group is Professor David Sanders, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise), Professor Debi Roberson, Research Strategy Committee member, Sarah Manning-Press, Research Governance and Planning Manager, and Karen Bush, Equality and Diversity Manager. It should be noted that it is always in the University’s interests to view sympathetically requests for individual staff circumstances to be considered.

  In deciding whether or not an individual will be selected for inclusion, consideration will be given to the following circumstances and the extent to which they have significantly constrained the individual’s ability to produce the expected volume of research outputs of suitable quality in the assessment period, as guided by the published panel criteria.

  Clearly defined circumstances:

  • Status as an early career researcher (ECR). These are individuals of any age who meet the criteria to be selected as Category A or Category C staff on the census date (31 October 2013) and who started their career as independent researchers on or after 1 August 2009.
    
    
  • Part-time working or other flexible working arrangements.
    
    
  • Absence on maternity, paternity, parental or adoption leave and arrangements on return to work following these periods of leave.
    
    
  • Prolonged absences (absences for more than six months consecutively in the assessment period) but which do not fall into one of the categories above. They include:
    • Secondment to non-academic positions outside the higher education sector, and in which the individual did not undertake academic research.
    • Career breaks for purposes unconnected with research, teaching or other academic duties.

  Complex circumstances:

  • Disability, ill-health and injury, including:
    • Any disability to which the Equality Act 2010 applies, including both permanent disabilities and any temporary disability (see Appendix 1);
    • Absence from work on the advice of a registered medical practitioner.
      
      
  • Constraints related to pregnancy or maternity, in addition to a clearly defined period of maternity leave, including:
    • Medical issues associated with pregnancy or maternity;
    • Health and safety restrictions in laboratory or fieldwork during pregnancy or breastfeeding;
    • Constraints on the ability to travel to undertake fieldwork due to pregnancy or breast-feeding.
      
      
  • Time spent acting as a carer or other domestic commitments.
    
    
  • Gender reassignment (see Appendix 1).
    
    
  • Other absences which the institution is legally obliged to permit including:
    • Time off for religious observance;
    • Absence arising out of involvement as a representative of the workforce.
      
      
  • Any other personal circumstances which are considered to have significantly constrained an individual’s ability to produce the expected volume of research outputs in the assessment period.

  For clearly defined circumstances, there is a clearly defined reduction in the number of outputs that may be submitted without penalty in the assessment. Where an individual has had a combination of circumstances with clearly defined reductions in outputs, these may be accumulated up to a maximum reduction of three outputs.

  For more complex circumstances, the University will make a judgement on the appropriate reduction in the number of outputs to be submitted based on worked examples published by the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU). If an appropriate worked example does not exist, the University will seek advice from the ECU. As part of the REF submission, the University will provide a rationale for its judgement on the appropriate reduction in the number of outputs which will be considered by the REF Equality and Diversity Advisory Panel (EDAP) on a consistent basis across all Units of Assessment. The EDAP will make recommendations about the appropriate number of outputs that may be reduced without penalty to the relevant main panel chairs, who will make the decisions.

• Fixed-term and Part-time Staff

  As part of its commitment to equal opportunities, the University has developed policies to support all staff, including those on fixed-term contracts and those who work part-time. In particular, Learning and Development provide advice, information, training and support for contract research staff to assist them in pursuing a career both within academia and outside the sector. The University’s Human Resources Strategy details our commitment to the development of all staff and all staff have the opportunity to engage in both personal and professional development.

• Criteria for Selection

  The following three criteria will be consistently applied to the research activity of all eligible staff (see Appendix 5 for the definition of eligible staff) considered for submission:

  1. The volume of high-quality research activity generated by the individual within the assessment period meets the criteria stated by the relevant main panels, having regard to any individual staff circumstances cited and the University’s need to submit an appropriate number of Impact Case Studies to each UoA.
  2. The quality of research activity generated by the individual (including outputs and, where appropriate to the discipline, research income) corresponds to the threshold level of excellence determined by the RSC in relation to each Unit of Assessment (UoA) to be entered, as measured against the criteria published by the REF panels.^[3]
  3. The research activity generated by the individual is in keeping with the research strategy cited in the University’s submission in an identifiable UoA.

  Those eligible staff whose research activity meets all three of the selection criteria will be selected for submission. The table below sets out the REF assessment criteria and the definitions of the starred levels for the outputs sub-profile.^[4]

  The criteria for assessing the quality of outputs are ‘originality, significance and rigour’.

  Four star	Quality that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour.
  Three star	Quality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour but which falls short of the highest standards of excellence.
  Two star	Quality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour.
  One star	Quality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour.
  Unclassified	Quality that falls below the standard of nationally recognised work. Or work which does not meet the published definition of research for the purposes of this assessment.

  The four main panels have explained in more details, within their statements on the panel criteria and working methods, how their group of sub-panels will apply the assessment criteria and interpret the level of definitions in developing the sub-profiles (see Appendix 6).

  ‘World-leading’ quality denotes an absolute standard of quality in each unit of assessment. ‘World-leading’, ‘internationally’ and ‘nationally’ in this context refers to quality standards. They do not refer to the nature or geographical scope of particular subjects, nor to the locus of research nor its place of dissemination. Equally, work with an international focus might not be of ‘world leading, internationally excellent or internationally recognised’ standard.

  ^[3] Panel Criteria and Working Methods (Ref REF 01.2012), January 2012].

  ^[4] REF 2014: Assessment Framework and Guidance on Submissions (Ref REF 02.2011), July 2011, p. 43, Table A2

• Selection Process

  The selection of staff and of outputs to be included in the submission will be based on information provided by individual staff members and their department.

  1. Annual research plans and outcomes monitoring forms are requested from all staff eligible to be selected for inclusion in the REF submission. The forms include details of research outputs, indicating up to four outputs which might be submitted, together with research-related information relevant for inclusion in REF submissions for the period from 1 January 2008.
  2. Research plans and outcomes monitoring forms are submitted each year by individual staff members to their Departmental Administrator.^[5] The monitoring forms are then reviewed by the Head of Department (HoD), the departmental Research Director and, normally, the Departmental Research Committee. This involves a critical review of what has been done and what is in progress, and the Department is required to satisfy itself that each individual’s work (a) aligns with Departmental research strategy and (b) is of appropriate quality judged by the standards of the subject.
  3. The HoD and the departmental Research Director discuss colleagues’ monitoring forms and the results of the review with the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) and their Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor.
  4. Each HoD is responsible for ensuring that feedback is provided to staff within his or her department. This should be given in person, normally by the Head of Department, by the departmental Research Director or by the individual’s mentor and must include details of the research outputs selected for a putative REF submission, the scores that have been given and the individual’s current status with regard to submission.
  5. All staff eligible to be selected for inclusion in the REF submission will be asked at the end of the Summer term 2012 to provide an updated list of their putative REF outputs by 30 September 2012. The lists will be reviewed by the HoD, the departmental Research Director and, normally, the Departmental Research Committee. The HoD and the departmental Research Director will then discuss the results of the review with the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) and the relevant Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor at a meeting to be held in late October or early November 2012.
  6. The RSC, at its meeting on 27 November 2012, will consider the results of the review meetings, in conjunction with any additional information provided by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise), in order to make preliminary decisions about which eligible staff will, or will not, be submitted to each UoA.
  7. Preliminary decisions, together with reasons for the decision based on the criteria for inclusion or other clear statement of reason for exclusion, will be communicated to members of staff by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) by 31 January 2013.
  8. Should an individual not be satisfied that their research has been appropriately judged, they can request that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) seek an opinion based on the REF assessment criteria from a suitably qualified impartial external reviewer. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) will then decide, in consultation with the RSC, whether or not to solicit an external opinion or opinions.
  9. All staff eligible to be selected for inclusion in the REF submission will be asked by their departments to provide updates on their research outputs at regular intervals during 2013.
  10. The updates will be reviewed by the HoD, the departmental Research Director, and normally, the Departmental Research Committee. The results of the review will be sent to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) and their Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor and meetings will be held to discuss the updates of staff who have not yet met the criteria for inclusion in the REF submission.
  11. The RSC will finalise decisions about which eligible staff and outputs will or will not be submitted to each UoA during the Spring and Summer terms 2013.
  12. Decisions, together with reasons for the decision, will be communicated in writing to members of staff by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) by 30 June 2013.

  ^[5] For the purpose of this Code of Practice, ‘Department’ refers to one of the University’s Departments, Schools, Centres or Institutes.

• Appeals

  Any member of staff who is eligible to be selected for submission has the right to appeal against a decision to exclude them on the following grounds:

  • potential discrimination related to one or more of the protected characteristics mentioned in the University’s Equality and Diversity Policy Statement; or
  • potential discrimination as a result of pattern of work, e.g. part-time employment or employment on fixed-term contracts; or
  • a procedural fault; or
  • a significant error of material fact.

  All appeals, clearly stating the grounds for appeal, must be submitted in writing to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) by 31 July 2013.

  Once an appeal has been received by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) the following process will be followed:

  1. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) will appoint an appropriate person to act as Chair of an Appeals Panel. The Chair will be a Pro-Vice-Chancellor not involved in the original decision-making process i.e. from a different Faculty to that of the appellant.
  2. The Chair will consider the appeal and make a judgement as to whether a prima facie case for appeal exists.
  3. If the Chair decides there is no case s/he will provide a report to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) and the RSC giving the reasons as to why a prima facie case does not exist. Following confirmation by RSC the appellant will be informed of the decision.
  4. If the Chair decides there is a case s/he will inform the appellant and will form an Appeals Panel. The members of the Panel, in addition to the Chair, will be a Professor from the same Faculty as the appellant, but not the same department, nominated by the Vice-Chancellor and a Professor from a different Faculty, nominated by UCU. No Appeals Panel member can have been involved in the original decision-making process i.e. not a member of the RSC.
  5. The Appeals Panel will consider all available information previously considered by the appellant’s HoD and Research Director, Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) and the RSC.
  6. The appellant will be entitled to meet with the Appeals Panel accompanied by a representative (either a trade union representative or a University of Essex colleague) in order to set out fully their grounds for appeal and answer any questions. The relevant HoD, Research Director, Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) may also be interviewed during the course of the hearing. The appellant and their representative will be present throughout and may direct questions via the Chair of the Panel.
  7. The Appeals Panel can decide either to reject or uphold the appeal. The Appeals Panel decision is final.
  8. Once the Appeals Panel has made its decision, appropriate action will be taken and will be communicated to the appellant by no later than 31 October 2013.

• Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs)

  The University will produce a profile, in terms of age, disability, gender, ethnicity and employment status, of all staff eligible for selection who are identified as being ‘at risk of not being submitted’ and those who have been identified as ‘not submissible’ at key stages of the selection process. If any discrimination is identified, the University will take action to change the relevant part of its REF procedures. These key stages are:

  • In June 2012, following a monitoring exercise of all eligible staff and before submitting the final version of our Code of Practice
  • In January 2013, following preliminary decisions about which eligible staff will or will not be submitted
  • In June 2013 after the RSC has finalised decisions about which eligible staff and outputs will or will not be submitted to each UoA
  • When considering any appeals
  • When preparing the final submission

  The University will also conduct a University-wide EIA, together with breakdowns by department, six months before the REF submission date. This will enable the University to investigate any areas where there is a differential impact on a particular group before the submission deadline.

  In addition, The University will provide a website profile, in terms of age, disability, gender, ethnicity and employment status, of all staff who were eligible for submission on the census date, indicating those who were submitted and those who were not. If a prima facie imbalance is found relative to the total potential, the University will provide an account for it and seek to take steps to address this, where appropriate.

• Appendices

  Appendix 1: Relevant Legislation and Definitions

  Appendix 2: Relevant University of Essex Policies and Procedures

  Appendix 3: REF 2014 documentation

  Appendix 4: Senate Committee which reports annually - Research Strategy Committee

  Appendix 5: Staff eligible to be selected for submission

  Appendix 6: Main Panel Generic Criteria for Assessing Outputs and Starred Quality Level Definitions

  Appendix 7: Invitation to disclose individual staff circumstances