The UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) – a UK-wide assessment of research quality, which informs the allocation of approximately £2 billion per year of public funding for universities’ research – is now high on the agenda of UK universities’ priorities. For REF 2029, research excellence will be evaluated and weighted in terms of ‘Contribution to Knowledge and Understanding’ (50 per cent), ‘Engagement and Impact’ (25 per cent) and ‘People, Culture and Environment’ (25 per cent).

In education, there has been a methodological shift in research since the previous REF 2021 towards research–practice partnerships (McGeown, 2023). Research–practice partnerships draw upon the knowledge, experience and expertise from both university-based researchers and practice-based professionals to plan, conduct and communicate research (Sjölund et al., 2022). This approach has the potential to narrow the widely recognised gap between research and practice, and result in more educationally relevant and impactful research (Coburn & Penuel, 2016). In the UK, this shift towards research–practice partnerships has been driven by:

• previous REF exercises, which have increased weighting on the allocation of public funding related to ‘impact’ from 20 per cent in REF 2014 to 25 per cent in REF 2021
• funders increasingly highlighting the need for ‘stakeholder’ or ‘user’ engagement to conceptualise and conduct research projects
• incentives and recognition from UK universities, for example, engagement and impact activities increasingly regarded as aspects of academic excellence within recruitment and promotion processes
• researchers’ increasing understanding of the added-value practice professionals bring to their research, providing important pedagogical and contextual knowledge.

‘Research–practice partnerships have the potential to narrow the widely recognised gap between research and practice, and result in more educationally relevant and impactful research.’

The methodological approach characteristic of research–practice partnerships is now reflected in new REF terminology, as funding allocation previously determined by ‘Impact’ in REF 2021 will be determined by ‘Engagement and Impact’ in REF 2029. While the definition of ‘Engagement’ is still to be provided, it may reflect, in part, engagement with non-academic partners with aligned interests, to inform, conduct and communicate university-based research. This differs from ‘Impact’ which in isolation can be achieved without the input of non-academic partners.

Yet beyond the ‘Engagement and Impact’ component, research–practice partnerships have implications for the other REF components, both ‘Contribution to Knowledge and Understanding’ and ‘People, Culture and Environment’. Reflecting on how research–practice partnerships may shape the type of submissions, and the criteria used to judge excellence in both of these areas, is also important.

In REF 2029, ‘Contribution to Knowledge and Understanding’ will be assessed primarily on the basis of academic outputs (peer-reviewed publications) and research–practice partnerships have implications for the quality criteria of ‘originality, significance and rigour’ which have historically been defined and applied within the context of more traditional (that is, researcher-led) research. For example, methodological rigour may be very different in the context of a research–practice partnership project to more traditional research, where careful consideration (and potentially compromise) has been made in the design and execution of research to meet both research and practice needs, and optimally achieve a shared research goal (McGeown et al., 2023). At present, we risk researchers writing out the involvement and distinct contribution of non-academic partners in their peer-reviewed manuscripts if there is concern regarding how these will be assessed in the next REF. If we are to acknowledge the intellectual contribution non-academic partners have made to our research, there need to be quality indicators in relation to this.

Further, in relation to ‘People, Culture and Environment’, research–practice partnerships are already transforming universities’ research culture and environments, as collaborations beyond university boundaries are becoming more common. University research groupings (such as centres and hubs) have historically included academic staff only, yet sustained and meaningful partnerships with professionals working with universities are increasingly contributing to university-based research. Similarly, it is essential that their intellectual contribution is reflected within the indicators used to assess the quality of people, culture and environment, if we are to credit their meaningful involvement in research.

To conclude, while the REF components have continued to be revised to reflect a broader assessment of excellence, it is vital that quality indicators also reflect the more diverse range of university-based research practices within the UK at present, including research being carried out within the context of research–practice partnerships.

References

Coburn, C. & Penuel, W. (2016). Research–Practice Partnerships in Education: Outcomes, Dynamics, and Open Questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48-54, https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750

McGeown, S. (2023, August 30). Better together: Research-practice partnerships in education. BERA Blog. https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/better-together-research-practice-partnerships-in-education

McGeown, S., Oxley, E., Love to Read Practice Partners, Ricketts, J., & Shapiro, L. (2023). Working at the intersection of research and practice: The Love to Read project. International Journal of Educational Research, 117, 102134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102134

Sjölund, S., Lindvall, J., Larsson, M., & Ryve, A. (2022). Using research to inform practice through research-practice partnerships: A systematic literature review. Review of Education, 10(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3337