What the  REF?!

A new year of ‘REF-iness’ kicks off as the What the REF team unpack the fallout from December’s REF changes and look ahead to what 2026 holds. With the dust now settling, the conversation turns from reaction to reckoning: what do the new rules actually mean in practice, and who stands to gain or lose?

The team highlight two must-read reflections on the reforms, including analysis of the removal of ‘culture’ from the former PCE and the disproportionate impact this may have on early career researchers, who often rely on less easily measurable contributions. While opinions differ on whether the shift from ‘culture’ to ‘strategy’ is substantive or merely semantic, there is consensus on one thing: the rules are set, and it is time to get on with it.

Much of the episode focuses on findings from the Hidden REF’s recent ‘think-aloud’ experiment, where evaluators assessed non-traditionally submitted outputs (NTOs) in real time. Drawing on 68 detailed observations across outputs ranging from software and databases to music composition, the team explore how assessors actually operationalise significance, originality, and rigour when familiar academic heuristics fall away. The results expose recurring challenges: inconsistent 300-word descriptions, reliance on inappropriate proxies from traditional publishing, and the subtle creep of aesthetics and personal taste into judgement.

The discussion moves from diagnosis to action. The team outline plans to translate these findings into practical assessment guidelines, to be tested and refined through workshops and the next Hidden REF competition. With submissions opening in March and an awards ceremony planned for November, the competition is positioned as both a low-risk testing ground and a rare source of joy in an otherwise anxiety-ridden REF cycle.

The episode closes with a shared ambition: to shift non-traditional outputs from the margins to the mainstream through evidence, dialogue, and sustained collective effort.

This week on What the REF?!, Ola and James start to unpack the long-awaited REF announcement from December, sharing first reactions and a palpable sense of relief across the sector. While a full deep dive is parked until the new year, the episode offers an initial digest of what has landed, why certainty matters, and which debates are already bubbling up around outputs, narratives and research culture.

The real highlight, though, is a fascinating interview with Sophie Crouchman from Universities Human Resources (UHR), conducted by Simon. Sophie lifts the lid on the often unseen role of HR in REF preparation and delivery, from staff data and equality impact assessments to promotion criteria, reward structures and institutional culture. She makes a compelling case that, despite the technical language and frameworks, REF is ultimately about people, and HR colleagues are central to making it work.

The conversation explores workload, recognition, collaboration across professional services, and how HR teams support universities through constant policy change and uncertainty. It is a warm, insightful reminder that REF is a collective effort, powered by many roles that rarely get the spotlight. A cheerful, thought-provoking episode that celebrates the hidden work behind the headlines and sets the scene nicely for REF conversations in the year ahead.

Simon and Ola are live at the 2025 Research & Innovation Conference, hearing Professor Dame Jessica Corner outline how REF2029 is moving forward – and we’ve got immediate reactions.

In this festive “What the Ref?” special, Gemma, Simon and Ola hang tinsel all over the looming REF 2029. They kick off by gleefully skewering the idea that “we can’t measure research culture”, arguing that if we can count impact, we can certainly start counting kindness, fairness and good practice – even if we’ll refine the metrics later.

They unwrap the new AI-in-REF report, worrying about equity, bureaucracy and who actually has the tech (and time) to use it. Then they zoom out to Europe, where DORA and CoARA are loudly championing responsible assessment and research culture, and wonder if the UK is about to march off in the opposite direction.

Their REF Christmas wish list? Keep research culture (PCE) front and centre, don’t shove it quietly back into a skinny “environment” box, protect space for non-traditional outputs and hidden roles, avoid a two-tier “Premier League vs everyone else” system, and give crystal-clear guidance so everyone doing research can be included.

Above all, they want decisions with honest rationale, not hand-wavy excuses – and a sector where people are simply happier to work. A merry, more humane, more European-flavoured REF-y Christmas to all!

We discussed Lizzie Gadd’s summary of the AI in the REF report, which you can find here: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7401256333037031424/

In this episode of What the REF?!, James, Gemma, and Simon reflect on an extraordinary few days at the Hidden REF Festival and explore what the new Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper could mean for the future of research assessment. The conversation begins with highlights from the Festival, where workshops, think-aloud experiments, and even a debate over Tom Cruise films versus K-pop tracks became creative ways to unpack how we evaluate non-traditionally submitted research outputs. What started as playful exercises quickly revealed deeper insights into the heuristics people use when making judgments, and how those can be made more explicit and fair in academic assessment.

The team also share the emotional impact of hearing from past Hidden REF competition winners. Stories like that of Laura Henderson, whose recognition in a Hidden Role has since led to expanded research support capacity in hospitals, underline why this work matters so much. A little recognition, they note, can have transformative effects on careers, institutions, and even patient outcomes. Alongside these moving moments, the Festival also laid the groundwork for expert working groups that will help shape guidelines for assessing diverse outputs, ensuring that the community itself drives the change.

From there, the discussion turns to the White Paper, which reaffirms the REF as the UK’s central mechanism for assessing research but hints at shifts in emphasis. The UK government’s focus on economic impact and the critique of a “one-size-fits-all” model of excellence suggest that the REF of the future may look very different. The team weigh up what this could mean for universities and for the broader definition of research excellence, noting both the risks of narrowing the focus and the opportunities for more inclusive recognition.

Together, these two threads — the grassroots energy of the Hidden REF Festival and the top-down direction of government policy — paint a picture of a research culture in transition. With the next Hidden REF competition on the horizon, the hosts argue that now is the moment to pull up our socks and get on with reshaping how excellence is defined and rewarded.

Welcome back to What the REF?!, the only podcast where academics make bureaucracy sound almost fun. Simon, James, and Gemma welcome new team member Dr Ola Thomson, who brings both organisational-behaviour expertise and the calm assurance of someone who’s already read the entire REF guidance.

Ola compares the REF to an iceberg: what you see is a harmless evaluation exercise, but beneath lurk strategy, politics, performance management, and possibly a kraken of accountability. The hosts debate why the REF’s noble pursuit of excellence ends up raising everyone’s blood pressure.

Between discussions of “research culture,” “the human element,” and whether wombats could manage universities, the team delivers surprisingly profound insights—occasionally disguised as jokes.

By the end, listeners may find themselves reconsidering their life choices, their institutional policies, and whether being “REF-able” is a compliment. The REF will find you. But at least now, you’ll understand its motives.

This week, James, Gemma, and Simon dive headfirst into the post-summer politics, but start with Simon’s keynote at the Research Software Engineering Conference. Imagine a room full of coders being told that research software deserves a spot in the REF – cue applause, tough questions, and one very good point: are we rewarding novelty over long-term, community-building work?

But that’s just the warm-up. The real drama? The infamous “pause to the REF.” Is it a no-cost extension in academic speak, or just three months of potential confusion? Rumors are flying fast: some say REF is being scrapped, others whisper about two-tier systems, and still others that the percentages on the PCE could be changed. Cue Dumbledore quotes, Russell Group conspiracy theories, and a plea not to treat researchers like battery hens.

We also get into the CKU guidance – the contribution to knowledge and understanding – and welcome the clarification that technicians, research software engineers, librarians, and other “hidden” roles can submit outputs in 2029. But will universities actually embrace this, or cling to the status quo?

And finally, excitement builds for the upcoming Festival of Hidden REF. Two days of lightning talks, workshops, and rumor-mill buzz right in the middle of the REF pause. It’s sold out, but don’t panic – a livestream is on the way. So join us for speculation, celebration, and maybe a little mischief as we unravel REF myths, spotlight hidden roles, and ask what kind of research culture we really want to build.

In this jam-packed episode of What the Ref?!, we look into the latest updates on the REF, including the portability debate, and the ever-evolving world of not-traditionally submitted outputs—aka NTOs, or as our guest from Liverpool calls them, Dots (Diverse Output Types).

We kick off with dramatic outcries, vague role descriptors, and the REF team’s valiant attempt to clarify who actually counts in REF submissions (spoiler: more people than you think!). From technicians to research software engineers, the REF’s message is clear—contributions come in many forms.

Then we head to Liverpool, where trailblazer Natalie Wallis shares her experiences of recognising Dots/NTOs and working with us on the first at-scale NTO workshop. Our hosts explore themes around awareness-raising, cultural inertia, and the ever-present stick vs. carrot dilemma. Should universities do the right thing because it’s right—or only when there’s a strategic advantage? From software in computer science (all two submissions of it!) to composition, translation, and data, the team calls for a REF revolution.

If there’s anything in the REF guidance that you would like us to investigate, please get in touch wtref@hidden-ref.org.

Our hosts are all members of the Hidden REF committee based at the universities of Southampton and Bristol: James Baker, Gemma Derrick – a self-confessed REF junkie – and Simon Hettrick, and our producer is Ben Thomas.