At a time of growing inequality in UK Higher Education,
how do we create a History subject panel that reflects the
profession and discipline in its variety and complexity?
The next Research Excellence Framework in UK Higher Education takes place in 2029. Work is ongoing to design and create the terms and structures that will determine the form and scope of this next ‘REF’ assessment.
Most recently, the steering group for REF2029 issued a call for applications to join one of the 34 subject panels, including History, whose members will assess and grade submissions in four years’ time. In previous REF cycles, panellists were identified and recommended for membership by learned societies and subject specialist associations. This included the Royal Historical Society for selections to the History subject panel.
For REF2029 the selection process is changing, with prospective panellists now invited to nominate themselves for consideration. The date for those interested in chairing the History panel closed on 6 February while the call for panel members remains open until 28 April. In making this change, the REF steering group highlights its bid for greater diversity of panel members for REF2029: ‘We encourage applicants from all backgrounds to apply … We are keen to hear from individuals with varied expertise who can bring unique perspectives to the panels.’
REF is a controversial subject for those involved in UK Higher Education. There is certainly much to question, challenge and criticise. REF is immensely burdensome and labour intensive; it’s overly determined by a STEM agenda (as witnessed by last year’s proposals—thankfully revoked—to extend Open Access mandates to books and book chapters); and its returns—measured in terms of QR or Quality Research funding—too often fail to reach those departments identified for reward. In History, this growing divergence between performance, reward, and the fate of high-ranking departments, such as those at Kent or UEA, exposes the gap between the aspirations of REF and the realities of UK HE on the ground.
As a vehicle for historians to read and assess the research of their peers, REF also demonstrates the health and vibrancy of our discipline—even as the wider HE infrastructure, which we need to support History, continues to crumble.
At the same time, REF retains its capacity to identify research excellence and innovation across the sector. This, in turn, offers opportunities to question and rethink assumptions about the capabilities and potential of selected departments and institutions. As a vehicle for historians to read and assess the research of their peers, REF also demonstrates the health and vibrancy of our discipline—even as the wider HE infrastructure, which we need to support History, continues to crumble. REF, moreover, is happening and—notwithstanding the crisis facing the humanities—REF2029 will go ahead.
The Royal Historical Society is very aware of the many, strong opinions about REF, not least from its own survey of academic members in 2024. At recent meetings, the Society’s Council has considered the nature of its relationship to REF and, in particular, the Society’s contribution to preparing for REF2029. Its decision is that the Society position itself as a ‘critical friend’: questioning when (as with last year’s OA proposals) there is need, while also looking to communicate, analyse and interpret REF2029 planning for historians.
This planning is currently focused on the composition of the subject panels which will be central to defining and overseeing the assessment criteria, discipline by discipline, for REF2029.
As many former History panellists confirm, membership is very rewarding in terms of learning about our discipline and its current practice. But being a panellist is also hugely time-consuming and will far exceed the ‘approximately 40 to 60 days of time over the course of the exercise’ currently stated on the REF2029 website.
As a critical friend, the Society welcomes REF’s strong statement on diversifying panels for 2029, and its appreciation of ‘the critical role that inclusive representation plays in ensuring the REF assessment process reflects the breadth and vitality of UK research’. We also encourage colleagues to find out more about the panel’s role and remit, and to consider putting themselves forward for membership.
At the same time, the Society is equally aware of the impediments to achieving greater diversity of membership on the History panel. There is currently little detail from the REF steering group on how self-nomination will work in practice; on how gaps in panel membership will be addressed; and there is confusion regarding the time commitment panel membership will require. As many former History panellists confirm, membership is very rewarding in terms of learning about our discipline and its current practice. But being a panellist is also hugely time-consuming and will far exceed the ‘approximately 40 to 60 days of time over the course of the exercise’ currently stated on the REF2029 website.
As the REF website notes, participation in the History panel also requires ‘the support of [panellists’] employing organisation for their appointment’. Here the aspirations for diversity of membership encounter the realities of UK Higher Education. First, the considerable, and widening, inequalities of resources across UK History departments. Second, the reduction in opportunities for non-teaching activities and initiatives—including personal research or extra-departmental work for the discipline—that we have seen affecting growing numbers of historians across the HE sector.
REF’s ‘Build it and they will come’ approach sits awkwardly with the realities and reduced opportunities of academic life, especially for those in the humanities.
In this environment it will be a hard sell for many aspirant panellists to convince their institutions of the merits of panel participation. REF’s ‘Build it and they will come’ approach sits awkwardly with the realities and reduced opportunities of academic life, especially for those in the humanities. At best, it is a risky approach to fostering diversity of panel membership. Without further attention it may fail.
How best to narrow the gap between aspiration and reality must be a priority while the call for panel applications remains open. In the coming weeks there’s a need to communicate REF’s call for self-nomination, as well as to set out to potential applicants—clearly, fully and openly—the expected roles, time commitment, cycles, activities and likely experience of History panel membership for REF2029. For individual applicants, this messaging needs to set out the demands of panel membership, as well as its pleasures and opportunities. For applicants’ employers, it needs to demonstrate the value of participation, for academic staff, their disciplines and their institutions.
Many learned societies are currently seeking to do just this. As part of its contribution, the Royal Historical Society will host—at 3pm on Friday 7 March—an informal, online event, to outline, discuss and ‘demystify’ our own subject panel. Open to all, this session brings together former panellists and potential applicants. We encourage you to attend to learn more. At the same time, between now and April, we also need those managing REF2029 to amplify these messages: to ensure their new approach to panel membership, and its laudable aims, are as fully realised as possible.
The President, Officers and Council of the Royal Historical Society
February 2025
Updates on REF2029
This post is the latest in a series of commentaries for historians on REF2029. With these articles, the Society seeks to summarise and share information as the structure and timetable for REF2029 is developed. For more posts in this series, please see here.
The Society also has more on REF2029 within the Advocacy & Policy section of its website.