A plea for a KEF and REF coalition

KEF (Knowledge Exchange Framework) and REF (Research Excellence Framework) are two frameworks used in the UK higher education sector to assess the impact of academic research.

While both frameworks serve a similar purpose, there are several key differences between them worth examining.

Firstly, it is important to note that KEF is a relatively new framework introduced in 2018, while REF has been in place since 2014. KEF aims to evaluate the impact of research on society, culture, and the economy, while REF focuses on assessing the quality of research outputs. It is immediately obvious to me that both frameworks should be nurtured equally. I imagine that might cause some consternation within universities that have world class research capabilities. Yet, for me the impact any research has on society, culture and the economy is of equal importance. We only have to look at the impact of generative AI to see that KEF almost offers opportunities for additional practical checks and balances society needs to manage the results of extraordinary leaps in research and associated technologies.

As a lecturer whose interest lies more towards practical, public understanding events and projects, inevitably I am biased and I don’t mind admitting that. But I do think that less gravitas is afforded to this kind of undertaking. The work recently undertaken at Falmouth University by staff at Launchpad Venture Studio, Immersive Business and Cornwall Business School demonstrates the impact forward facing knowledge exchange can have on individuals, communities, organisations, businesses, and regions. However, because those working to promote these events have not published in high quality journals it is as if this outreach is dismissed.

This is not really a surprise, as one of the main differences between the two frameworks is the way in which they assess impact. KEF uses a set of metrics to measure the impact of research, such as the number of start-ups or spin-off companies that have been created after research, the number of patents filed, and the number of collaborations with external partners. On the other hand, REF assesses impact through a case study approach, where institutions are required to submit evidence of the impact of their research, along with supporting data. This is why I believe that the two need to be combined more specifically so that those interested in KEF collaborate directly with staff interested in creating academic output. Working in silos is no longer desirable and a shift in practical approach is desperately needed I feel.

Of course, in terms of the scope of assessment, KEF covers a wider range of activities than REF, including teaching, public engagement, and professional development. This reflects a broader shift towards a more holistic approach to evaluating the impact of universities, beyond just research outputs. This will becoming increasingly important as learners want more than a passive education or at worst a branded ‘YouTube’ style experience. With the advance of precision or personalised learning through increasingly sophisticated application of artificial intelligence consumers will demand more value, more hands-on, applied elements of their education. The writing is on the wall and from my perspectives HE is not moving fast enough in some quarters.

From a statistical perspective, both frameworks use a rating system to assess institutions. KEF uses a scale of 1-4, where 4 represents the highest level of impact, while REF uses a similar 1-4 scale, but with additional descriptors such as "world-leading" and "internationally excellent". The results of these assessments are used by funding bodies to allocate research funding to institutions, which can have a significant impact on the future direction of research. It’s obvious why Vice Chancellors are losing sleep about how to push staff into creating more ‘internationally excellent’ research. However, I believe that through combining enthusiastic and knowledgeable staff that have a passion for developing public understanding and societal, cultural impact alongside those traditional academics we could create something impactful. Let's have a mentorship scheme that helps those less inclined to publish research to become comfortable in doing just that. If it's not your passion it's so easy to put it aside and let a million and one other things take precedence.

In terms of opinion, there is some debate within the higher education sector about the relative merits of KEF and REF. Some argue that KEF is a more useful framework for assessing the impact of research on wider society, while others believe that REF is a more rigorous approach that better reflects the quality of research outputs. I think we should cease this debate right now and combine the two approaches in a meaningful, accessible, and exciting way.

Overall, while both frameworks have their strengths and weaknesses, it is clear to me that the trend towards a more holistic approach to evaluating the impact of universities is likely to continue and develop further. I am banking on it! As such, it will be important for institutions to engage with both frameworks to demonstrate the full range of their contributions to society, culture, and the economy. I know that our robotics hackathon, a conference about VR, AR, Digital twin and the metaverse, a micro internship initiative, our collaboration between robotics and agriculture, our future of television and documentary making event, Techstars weekends and many other initiatives across the whole campus demonstrate our creativity, value, and capability. It inspires students to be proactive, to undertake post graduate courses and shows the community we are here to help. I just wish it was given sufficient kudos.