Last month, Research England pressed ‘pause’ on REF2029. The run up to this had seen announcements on core elements of the current Research Excellence Framework: recruitment of Subject Panel chairs, deputies and members; piloting of the new People, Community and Environment (PCE) component; and statements on the terms and scope of ‘Cultures of Knowledge and Understanding’, which constitutes the new-look ‘outputs’ element of REF2029.
These are REF-wide initiatives, but also ones of considerable importance for history and those historians who will participate in the coming assessment exercise. History was one of the chosen subjects for the PCE pilot and colleagues who participated, including from among the Society’s Council, have provided guidance on its utility as a measure of how historians, and scholars in the humanities more widely, undertake research. Current debates over the potential portability and weighting of outputs are likewise of particular concern to historians for whom proper appreciation of their long-form, long process work is vital.
It is equally important to view REF’s current pause from this disciplinary perspective. Officially, the halt—called in September by the UK’s Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, Patrick Vallance—will enable REF leaders to ‘take stock, ensure alignment with government priorities and vision for higher education, and reflect on feedback from the sector.’ We’ve also been told that Research England ‘will announce any changes to the exercise by December 2025.’
What we don’t know is what’s happening behind the scenes, both in terms of the scale and content of this review. What is certain is that many are using this pause to lobby—publicly and privately—for their preferred outcome. What’s also likely is that those with the strongest voices, or the most direct access, are making their pitch for selected institutions and a particular vision of the purpose and outcomes of higher education.
This leaves little space for disciplinary perspectives, and even less opportunity for disciplines—predominantly in the humanities—already marginalised by misleading public rhetorics on value and beaten down by cuts in a financial crisis that is hitting our subjects with particular force. As a learned society the Royal Historical Society speaks for its discipline and those who practice history regardless of how and where they do so.
What, therefore, do we wish to see when REF’s current pause is lifted?
It’s clear that PCE is a major part of the current review. The recent pilot showed that some revision is needed: to ensure that assessments are based on data and pay full heed to narratives written at the disciplinary and department level. At the same time, these revisions should not undermine the premise which underpin the new PCE element. We urge decision makers to appreciate the very considerable advances that REF has fostered as a result of the greater importance it has placed on research culture in recent years.
REF has helped to shape some tangible improvements in historians’ experience of research in UK higher education, not least closer attention to professional development, and support for greater diversity in staffing and research practice. To risk and diminish these improvements by reducing the PCE element of REF2029 would be a major failing—one that would have a significant, negative impact on how historians, as skilled researchers, are able to undertake their work.
We also ask those assessing REF’s future to retain their current commitment to impact and public engagement—the third component in 2029’s big picture. Here too REF has encouraged significant advances in demonstrating the public value of universities, not least within their regions. Impact is an area in which historians excel, and is further testimony to the rewards of developing positive and collaborative research cultures. Within institutions, it has a dimension that’s given rise to closer—and more creative—working within and between departments and disciplines. Plans for REF2029 note the importance of this broader perspective which will take the form of an additional unit-level impact narrative alongside subject case studies. This rightly asserts the importance of impact while removing those burdens, especially acute in smaller departments, that might otherwise fall on individual, and identifiable, scholars. It is a change the Society and many historians welcome and one to which we expect REF to hold.
Impact forms a vital link between academic historians and the many who enjoy and pursue history outside formal education. This public interest is an asset on which we must build. Impact work is a positive good: for individuals, institutions, regional communities and economies, and civic culture. At a time when many glibly question the value of history and the humanities as a university subject, support for, and measures of, impact and public engagement must remain a core element of a REF exercise that considers scholarship in the round. To lose sight of this would be a serious mistake with far-reaching consequences for UK higher education, now more than ever.
History and the wider humanities currently battle numerous challenges. To do so effectively we need structures that best support research and allow us to work well and demonstrate the value of history. This is essential if—when REF restarts—we’re to pursue a healthy culture and future for our profession.
Professor Lucy Noakes, President, Royal Historical Society
Professor Barbara Bombi, Secretary for Research, RHS
Dr Philip Carter, Director, RHS