Skip to content
Back to outputs

‘Environment’ submissions in the UK’s Research Excellence Framework 2014

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

‘Environment’ submissions in the UK’s Research Excellence Framework 2014. / Thorpe, Andy; Craig, Russell; Tourish, Dennis; Hadikin, Glenn; Batistic, Sasa.

In: British Journal of Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, 07.2018, p. 571-587.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Thorpe, A, Craig, R, Tourish, D, Hadikin, G & Batistic, S 2018, '‘Environment’ submissions in the UK’s Research Excellence Framework 2014', British Journal of Management, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 571-587. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12248

APA

Thorpe, A., Craig, R., Tourish, D., Hadikin, G., & Batistic, S. (2018). ‘Environment’ submissions in the UK’s Research Excellence Framework 2014. British Journal of Management, 29(3), 571-587. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12248

Vancouver

Thorpe A, Craig R, Tourish D, Hadikin G, Batistic S. ‘Environment’ submissions in the UK’s Research Excellence Framework 2014. British Journal of Management. 2018 Jul;29(3):571-587. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12248

Author

Thorpe, Andy ; Craig, Russell ; Tourish, Dennis ; Hadikin, Glenn ; Batistic, Sasa. / ‘Environment’ submissions in the UK’s Research Excellence Framework 2014. In: British Journal of Management. 2018 ; Vol. 29, No. 3. pp. 571-587.

Bibtex

@article{b54068ef564f4bd5a1bd3e6a49646a74,
title = "{\textquoteleft}Environment{\textquoteright} submissions in the UK{\textquoteright}s Research Excellence Framework 2014",
abstract = "There has been much debate about university research assessment exercises. In the UK, a major element of the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF2014) has been the research {\textquoteleft}Environment{\textquoteright}. Here we analyse 98 REF2014 {\textquoteleft}Environment{\textquoteright} submissions in Business and Management Studies. We explore whether there are distinctive language-related differences between submissions of high and low ranked universities, and conclude that submission writers have a strong incentive to exaggerate strengths and conceal problems. In addition, innate biases such as the {\textquoteleft}halo{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}velcro{\textquoteright} effects may distract the attention of assessors from a submission{\textquoteright}s strengths and weaknesses, since they are likely to influence their pre-existing impressions. We propose several changes to improve how {\textquoteleft}Environment{\textquoteright} is evaluated. We also argue that the research {\textquoteleft}Environment{\textquoteright} would be more likely to be enhanced if the number of outputs submitted in future were an average of two and a maximum of four per academic, rather than the maximum of six currently being considered.",
keywords = "REF, Impression Management, Language, Policy Implications, embargoover12",
author = "Andy Thorpe and Russell Craig and Dennis Tourish and Glenn Hadikin and Sasa Batistic",
note = "24 month embargo.",
year = "2018",
month = jul,
doi = "10.1111/1467-8551.12248",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "571--587",
journal = "British Journal of Management",
issn = "1045-3172",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - ‘Environment’ submissions in the UK’s Research Excellence Framework 2014

AU - Thorpe, Andy

AU - Craig, Russell

AU - Tourish, Dennis

AU - Hadikin, Glenn

AU - Batistic, Sasa

N1 - 24 month embargo.

PY - 2018/7

Y1 - 2018/7

N2 - There has been much debate about university research assessment exercises. In the UK, a major element of the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF2014) has been the research ‘Environment’. Here we analyse 98 REF2014 ‘Environment’ submissions in Business and Management Studies. We explore whether there are distinctive language-related differences between submissions of high and low ranked universities, and conclude that submission writers have a strong incentive to exaggerate strengths and conceal problems. In addition, innate biases such as the ‘halo’ and ‘velcro’ effects may distract the attention of assessors from a submission’s strengths and weaknesses, since they are likely to influence their pre-existing impressions. We propose several changes to improve how ‘Environment’ is evaluated. We also argue that the research ‘Environment’ would be more likely to be enhanced if the number of outputs submitted in future were an average of two and a maximum of four per academic, rather than the maximum of six currently being considered.

AB - There has been much debate about university research assessment exercises. In the UK, a major element of the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF2014) has been the research ‘Environment’. Here we analyse 98 REF2014 ‘Environment’ submissions in Business and Management Studies. We explore whether there are distinctive language-related differences between submissions of high and low ranked universities, and conclude that submission writers have a strong incentive to exaggerate strengths and conceal problems. In addition, innate biases such as the ‘halo’ and ‘velcro’ effects may distract the attention of assessors from a submission’s strengths and weaknesses, since they are likely to influence their pre-existing impressions. We propose several changes to improve how ‘Environment’ is evaluated. We also argue that the research ‘Environment’ would be more likely to be enhanced if the number of outputs submitted in future were an average of two and a maximum of four per academic, rather than the maximum of six currently being considered.

KW - REF

KW - Impression Management

KW - Language

KW - Policy Implications

KW - embargoover12

U2 - 10.1111/1467-8551.12248

DO - 10.1111/1467-8551.12248

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 571

EP - 587

JO - British Journal of Management

JF - British Journal of Management

SN - 1045-3172

IS - 3

ER -

ID: 7380639