ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS

Research Assessment Exercise 
2008
OVERVIEW AND GUIDANCE

AUT, December 2005

RAE 2008

1	Introduction 

1.1	At AUT Council in April 2005, the union reiterated its policy of opposition to the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). The RAE has had a disastrous impact on the UK higher education system, leading to the closure of departments, redundancies, demoralisation of staff, and discriminatory practices. We are campaigning for this to be the last RAE but in the meantime we must do all we can to ensure that the profession, disciplines and individual careers are not irreparably damaged during the run up to 2008. 

1.2	The AUT, particularly the women’s committee, has played a key role in highlighting problems of discrimination with previous RAEs. Evidence of discrimination could be found across all grades, job types, subject areas, age groups and institutions. Partly in response to this pressure, but also due to new equal opportunities legislation, the RAE has been modified in a number of ways of interest and in ways which open up the possibility of campaigning around the RAE. We recognise that activists and LA Executives are already swamped and beginning to gear up for the pay campaign but hope that you find something in this activist mailing of use and decide to act on some of our suggestions. 

1.2.1	Each LA will have received a detailed briefing outlining the key features of the new RAE guidelines, particularly on the code of practice on submissions; key negotiating points in relation to exclusions and contract changes as a result of the RAE; and a list of LA action points, a model PVC (or equivalent) letter and a checklist of key questions for individual members. We are hoping that LAs will approach their institutions soon asking to see a copy of the code of practice and will be sending out to members the checklist of questions. In the belief that the more pressure on institutions the better, we have modified the circular and will send versions to women members and to activists. Apologies then for cross posting. 

2	Institutions and Equalities

2.1	Each institution in the next RAE will be required to draw up a Code of Practice on how their submission process complies with equality legislation. Guidance for institutions on how to devise a code of practice has been drawn up by the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU), with some input from the AUT. This Guidance on preparing RAE submissions (Annex G) is available on the 2008 RAE website:http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2005/03/rae0305.pdf

2.2	The ECU not only recommends equalities training for those heading the submission process but also states that equality proofing needs to be drilled in deeper at the departmental, faculty (or school) and institutional level. The ECU guidance calls for complete transparency in the constitution, membership and decision–making of committees as well as the establishment of appropriate appeals mechanisms. This will allow activists to ask questions about the infrastructure of their institution, about the distribution of resources (such as time in the form of sabbaticals) as well as requiring many of the senior management team to be trained in equalities. 

2.3	The guidance also recommends that the codes of practice include information on the treatment of ‘individual circumstances that might have had an effect on an individual’s contribution to a submission’. This information should follow the standard list of circumstances taken into account by the panels, e.g. maternity leave, disability, new entrants into the profession etc (see 3.1 for the full list). A key part of the code of practice will be to make sure that the treatment of ‘individual circumstances’ is standardised across all departments.  

2.4	In addition, the code of practice should include a statement about how the institution supports its fixed-term and part-time staff, including contract research staff.  For the sake of this exercise hourly-paid staff bank-rolled through the institution with similar rights to other employees qualify as having a salaried contract and should have the same rights and protections delivered through the code of practice as non hourly-paid staff.  The duty to support fixed term and part time staff could be used more generally and in particular where institutions insist on the same number of publications as full-time staff or permanent staff.

2.5	Individual activists can send letters to their PVC or VC asking to see the code of practice and for the information we have outlined. Where this is not forthcoming please campaign through your LA and contact the Education Committee of national AUT. 

2.6	Where the code of practice is forthcoming but lacks the detail suggested in Appendix G or includes the detail on paper but not ‘on the ground’ then campaign around these issues through your LA and let national AUT know. It might also be worth bringing this to light within the University through Departmental, Faculty and Senate meetings.  

2.7	The code of practice allows us to ask questions about the constitution of committees, decision-making processes, and appeals procedures. It means that these and the distribution of resources must be fair, open and transparent. So, it could have a greater impact than just RAE submissions.

3	Panels, Sub-Panels and Equalities.

3.1	Main panels and sub-panels have also issued guidance on how they will deal with the effect of personal circumstances on an individual’s contribution to a submission. The full list of circumstances includes:

•	absence due to maternity/adoption leave
•	women returning to part-time work after maternity leave in the period 1 January 2001 to 31 October 2007
•	adoptive parents returning to part-time work after adoptive leave in the period 1 January 2001 to 31 October 2007
•	part-time work
•	disability, including temporary incapacity that lasts for at least 12 months. Institutions are advised that the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 will cover people with cancer, Multiple Sclerosis and HIV from the point of diagnosis from October 2006
•	young staff who entered the profession during the period 1 January 2001 to 31 October 2007
•	mature staff who were new entrants to the profession during the period 1 January 2001 to 31 October 2007
•	absence due to ill-health or injury.

3.2	These are important potential safeguards for members, though there are variations between sub–panels as to how maternity leave, or other extended periods of absence, will be treated. For example, some panels suggest a mechanistic reduction of expected outputs, others would like to see maternity leave included under form RA5b. Despite these variations, it is important to make sure that staff in charge of departmental submissions are fully aware of the new guidelines and are confident that they will be implemented by the RAE panels. You may well find that submission decisions are being made on poor information and understanding of the new rules. The more people who know about these safeguards the better so please do publicise them wherever you can. 

3.3	Given the unfortunate absence of Women’s Studies sub-panel, it is worth noting that individual panels have stressed the value of pedagogy, applied and interdisciplinary research. Although we have received some reports of departments encouraging academics to publish in particular journals the RAE stipulates that place of publication is less important than the work itself.  

3.4	The ‘rating’ used in previous exercises will be replaced by ‘quality profile’ attributed to each Unit of Assessment, (usually a Department or School.) Quality profiles are based on four defined ’starred’ quality levels. The ‘quality profile’ is intended to reflect the ‘proportion of overall research activity described in the submission’ and includes: research outputs, research environment and esteem indicators. The RAE (2008) will assess research activity rather than individuals, i.e. the overall profile will be compiled from ratings from outputs, environment and esteem not individuals. There is no rationale at all for HEI management to give individual members of staff star ratings. 

3.5	Between the panels and sub-panels there are also differences in the number of research outputs required: some pieces of work count for more than one output and with some sub–panels there is no automatic penalty for submitting fewer than four pieces of work. Special provision has been made for ‘new researchers’ specifically those who have entered the profession since the last RAE, and for those who may have taken a break from research due to maternity leave or other circumstances. This is an important move forward for women members of staff but institutions might be slow to take advantage of the new rules. Women members of staff need to know that there is some flexibility in the system. Please do publicise this. 

3.6	The Education Committee will be writing to the RAE team about the diverse constitution – or lack thereof – of its panels. When we receive an answer we shall be feeding that back through the Equal Opportunities Committee and Women’s Committee and then decide how to proceed.

4	 Protection of Terms and Conditions

4.1	The AUT welcomed the introduction of the ‘quality profiles’ when they were first announced by the funding councils in 2004. It was felt that the profiles would help to reduce the ‘cliff edge’ effects of the old grade system. Moreover, the union was pleased to note that the new rules sought to ‘…put an end to the situation, produced by the previous rating scale, where an HEI might consider leaving one or more established researchers out of a submission to ensure that it achieved a higher grade and possibly received more funding’, (HEFCE, 2004, paragraph 49). Unfortunately, the funding councils’ advice is being ignored by HE institutions and AUT are continuing to see evidence of ‘games playing’ in relation to RAE submissions. 

4.2	Initially, there was some hope that the new ‘quality profiles’ would lead HEIs to adopt a more inclusive approach in the next RAE. In fact, this remains the view of the funding councils who point out that under the new rules there is no longer a financial disincentive to leave out potentially ‘weaker’ researchers. Unfortunately, there is widespread scepticism among institutions about the new methodology. HEIs are sceptical that starred levels rated 1 or 2 on the new scale will attract any funding and because there is no plan to publish submission rates, excluding staff will maximise the reported average grade (e.g. in anticipation of league tables). Institutions are therefore adopting a highly selective approach to RAE submissions and consequently LAs are encouraged to negotiate protections for academic staff, excluded from the 2008 RAE, along the lines of previous agreements.  Please get in touch with your Local Association to find out whether these protections have been negotiated. If you are an active member of your LA Exec please refer to the LA circular:

•	http://www.aut.org.uk/circulars/html/la7669.html
•	http://www.aut.org.uk/circulars/rtf/la7669.rtf

4.3	If you have been unfairly excluded from the RAE (for example, for not publishing four items of research) then consider using institutional appeals or grievance procedures to challenge such decisions. Contact your LA for advice. Where you are an active member of the LA please again refer to the circular. Ensuring fair and transparent appeals mechanisms is very much in the interests of individual members of staff. 

4.4	AUT notes with particular concern the increased pressure on some academic staff deemed to be ‘non research active’ to move to academic-related contracts (in some cases with a ‘teaching-only contract’) in advance of the 2008 RAE. In the previous RAEs this problem arose from the perceived need on the part of HEIs to decrease the total number of academic staff so that the proportion of staff submitted as research active was increased. Under the 2008 rules the funding councils have made it clear that the proportion of ‘non research active’ to ‘research active’ staff selected will not impact on the profile. There is thus no RAE-related reason for an institution to pressure individuals to move to a teaching-only contract or to a teaching and scholarship job family. AUT believes that the pressure is inappropriate and should be challenged. 

4.5	Nationally we need to be kept informed about how RAE preparations are rolling out throughout the country. Please keep us informed of your experiences.

Checklist of key questions.

1.	Have the procedures for selection of submissions within your department and institution been made clear to you in writing?

2.	Have those procedures been “equality proofed” as required by the funding councils (see Annex G of the guidance on submissions http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2005/03/ )?

3.	Have you received a copy of the internal code of practice on equalities required by the funding councils?

4.	Have the senior managers with responsibility for coordinating RAE submissions had training in the equality opportunities aspects of the process?

5.	Is the decision-making process on the selection of submissions sufficiently transparent?  That is, do you know who is making the decisions, what criteria, methodology and timescale they are applying and how they are ensuring fairness and consistency?

6.	Are there mechanisms in place within the institution to monitor the fairness of the procedures and their impact on staff?

7.	If the volume of your research output has been limited by the circumstances described in the equal opportunities guidelines (annex G, see 2 above), have you made that known and has it been taken properly into account?

8.	Are staff being encouraged to submit the full range of research outputs including applied and interdisciplinary research and scholarship as defined in annex B of the guidance (see 2 above)?

9.	If your work is excluded from the RAE, do you have grounds for believing that you may have been the subject of discrimination on grounds, for example, of gender or race?  Your institution should have circulated details of how to complain as part of its internal code of practice (see 3 above).  Contact your local association for advice and support before pursuing a complaint or appeal.

10.	Have you been submitted to any pressure or threats to your professional status or career progression or conditions of service as a result of exclusion from the RAE?  If so, contact your local association immediately.

Model LA letter to PVC for research regarding Code of Practice 

Dear [pro-vice chancellor for research],

I write with regard to the RAE requirement that each submitting institution establishes a Code of Practice that attends to all relevant equal opportunities legislation to date. 

I would be grateful if you could provide me with details of the progress being made on the University of….Code of Practice.  Given the ongoing use of shadow panels and RAE preparation meetings at…., I would particularly welcome information about the institutional adoption of the recommendations of the Equalities Challenge Unit with regard to ensuring rigorous equality-proofing at departmental and Faculty level.  

Yours sincerely,