Read on Twitter
It& #39;s summer, so the UK academic promotion notices are appearing. (Congrats all!) But, can we have a word about some changes in referee forms? I& #39;ve always done quite a few of these and in the past I have enjoyed engaging as a colleague with someone& #39;s overall career trajectory 1/
It& #39;s great to sit down and review how the threads of someone& #39;s research have come together in ways that now consitute a significant body of work, and to learn more about how that informs their teaching and citizenship. These can be very pleasurable letters to write 2/
However, universities are increasingly sending out forms to complete that are both very demanding and disjointed; asking for individual reviews of papers (often using REF criteria), evidence of research income, impacts, and PhD profile. This feels like a very different process 3/
I am also increasingly unsure what I am being asked to add. Many of the university criteria will be answerable by the data they already hold. Am I just meant to be repeating the work of internal or external REF reviewers? (External REF reviewers who are normally paid too) 4/
Here& #39;s one eg from this year. I had to evaluate did the person make: "a significant contribution to a minimum of 4 outputs in the most recent 6 year period including some which are likely to achieve rating 4* (using REF criteria) and with none of these four outputs below 3*." 5/
I suspect these are drafted on the basis that someone thinks they are more objective, hence will make promotion fairer. However, their effect is to communicate a very narrow and instrumental case for promotion that is likely to run counter to equality and diversity initiatives 6/
