Over the last six months, I’ve worked with 4 universities delivering REF-focused writing and research training. What these institutions have in common is simple: they recognise that REF literacy is no longer optional.
Whatever our personal views on the REF - and many academics have strong ones, including me - it remains a defining feature of the UK higher education landscape. It influences funding, reputation, workload allocation, promotion, and strategic planning. Pretending otherwise doesn’t protect institutions or staff; it leaves them exposed.
And yet, many universities still underinvest in REF training despite having REF ringfenced budgets.
In-house provision is often informal, ad hoc, or based on the individual assumption that academics should “just know” how REF quality works. They don’t, and not because they lack intellectual capacity, but because REF quality is not the same thing as scholarly quality alas.
REF is a specific evaluative regime. It has its own logics, signals, and failure modes. It asks assessors, who are often non-experts in a given small niche, to make judgements based on what is visible, legible, and defensible on the page. When interdisciplinary work is at stake, forget it.
REF assessors do not ask:
“Is this competent scholarship?”
“Is this a world-leading idea in the sub, sub sub field?”
They ask:
“Is the originality, significance, and rigour identifiable on the page?”
“Is the contribution clear to someone outside the immediate subfield?”
That distinction matters enormously.
When universities fail to train staff explicitly in REF literacy, several predictable things happen. Outputs hover on the borderline. Internal review discussions become subjective and political (and often completely wrong). Staff feel uncertain about expectations. And, inevitably, the institution experiences last-minute panic as submission deadlines approach.
By contrast, institutions that invest in explicit REF literacy tend to see:
fewer borderline outputs
clearer, more productive internal review conversations
less last-minute pressure
and a higher proportion of genuinely strong submissions
This is about understanding how quality is read within a particular system, not a moral judgment.
At an institutional level, REF training should be treated as core infrastructure and not a discretionary extra or a favour delivered by over-stretched senior staff at research away days. Without it, universities rely on assumption, folklore, and hope. And hope is not a REF strategy.
If your university is thinking seriously about REF readiness, the question is no longer whether to invest in REF literacy, but how well that investment is designed.
I offer REF-focused writing training for universities. If you’d like to discuss options, you’re welcome to book a call. You can contact me via my email or message me here.