Briefings

REF2029: Three shifts higher education institutions need to grasp about REF2029

on this page
  1. What to expect from this briefing
  2. The key shifts signalled in the new guidance
  3. What does this mean in practice?
  4. Three diagnostic tools to support you

Higher education is understandably risk-averse when it comes to the REF. Institutions invest heavily in approaches that have worked before, and there is a strong incentive to default to familiar practices, even when the framework changes. This is a rational response to uncertainty, but it also carries a risk: not misunderstanding the guidance in detail but failing to notice where familiar assumptions are still shaping overall thinking.

This briefing has been developed to help the sector navigate that moment of transition with confidence. Rather than offering another summary of the REF guidance, we have sought to interpret and clarify how the framing of excellence itself has shifted, and what this means in practice for institutional and unit-level behaviour.

updated on 28 Aug 2026
5 minutes read

What to expect from this briefing

Interpretation of REF2029 by;

  • distilling REF2029 into three core shifts about how excellence is now understood and assessed
  • translating those shifts into practical diagnostic tools that help institutions identify where familiar thinking may still be shaping decisions
  • grounding these diagnostics in explicit evidence from the REF2029 guidance, provided in an accompanying annex

The intention is not to prescribe a single “right” approach, but to support informed judgement and encourage confident adaptation.  REF2029 does not reward novelty for its own sake, but it does require institutions to move beyond business as usual where the rules, expectations and forms of judgement have genuinely changed.

The key shifts signalled in the new guidance

From prestige to contribution

Research quality is no longer inferred from where something is published or who authored it. Instead, it is demonstrated by clearly explaining what a coherent body of work contributes to knowledge, across a wider range of outputs and practices, how it does so, and why it matters.

From outputs to pathways

Research quality and impact are no longer assumed to flow automatically from outputs. REF2029 reflects a more realistic understanding that impact is created through credible pathways, shaped by how people work together, engage others, and exercise judgement over time.

From business as usual to people-centred, adaptive strategy.

REF2029 asks institutions to show how excellence is actively sustained through deliberate choices about strategy, culture and ways of working, including how they support their people, learn from practice and adapt to change. This shifts the focus from maintaining structures to intentionally developing the people, practices and cultures that enable research to create value over time.

If your REF2029 approach would have looked the same in REF2021, you’re probably missing the point. There is more changing than just the profile titles…

What does this mean in practice?

Excellent research is defined by contribution, so don’t rely on prestige alone

  • Research quality is not demonstrated exclusively through proxy signals such as where something is published or who authored it.
  • Panels expect institutions to explain what a coherent body of work contributes to knowledge, how that contribution is made, and why it matters
  • REF2029 values coherence, portfolios and teams, not just individual “star outputs” or performers
  • A wider range of outputs and research practices can legitimately evidence excellence, where they best demonstrate contribution
  • Impact credibility depends on how convincingly research is shown to have contributed to change, not on formal thresholds or hierarchies

Behavioural implication

Don’t let prestige do the explanatory work, and don’t let it limit what you submit. Use the outputs and practices that best evidence contribution and explain that contribution clearly and confidently.
 

Excellent research is demonstrated through credible pathways to value, and engagement is often the mechanism that makes those pathways work.

  • Research excellence is understood as a collective, relational endeavour, not individual performance
  • REF2029 explicitly recognises the contribution of diverse roles that enable research, engagement and impact
  • Engagement is framed as a legitimate research practice that can shape research and enable credible pathways from research to change
  • Impact claims are more credible when institutions explain how engagement and responsible practice were central to achieving that impact 

Behavioural implication:

Treat engagement as a core mechanism for building research contribution and impact, not a peripheral or optional activity.

Excellence requires people-centred, adaptive strategy

  • REF2029 assesses how clearly institutions and units make and explain strategic decisions about focus, priorities and investment, and how these cultivate their contribution to research and society
  • REF2029 expects institutions to show how different elements of excellence connect; three profiles, one coherent story
  • Context matters: panels want to see how institutions respond to constraints, challenges and change, not just describe them
  • Learning, adaptation and improvement are explicitly valued, not treated as weaknesses
  • Institutional strategy is now assessed in its own right, not treated as background context

Behavioural implication:

Institutions must explain and evidence how their distinctive approach to research, engagement and impact has been intentionally developed and strengthened over time.

Three diagnostic tools to support you

We have produced three simple diagnostics to act as a first, high-level sense check. They capture the essence of the three most important shifts in how excellence is framed and assessed in REF2029.

We have included these simplified spectra first because many institutions are understandably cautious about moving away from approaches that worked well in REF2021. In that context, the greatest risk is not misunderstanding the guidance in detail but failing to notice where familiar assumptions are still shaping overall thinking.

Each simplified diagnostic focuses on a single core contrast between REF2021 and REF2029:

  • how research quality is evidenced
  • how research quality is produced
  • how excellence is stewarded over time

They are intended to be used quickly and reflectively, to prompt discussion rather than to provide definitive answers. Institutions should expect to find themselves somewhere along each spectrum, rather than neatly at one end or the other.
A useful way to use these diagnostics is to ask:

  • Which end of the spectrum feels closest to how we currently think or act?
  • Where might our instincts still be shaped by REF2021?
  • What would need to change for us to move further towards the REF2029 end?

The simplified diagnostics are deliberately high-level. They are followed by expanded versions that unpack each shift in more detail.

High Level Diagnostic Tools

Diagnostic 1: How is research quality evidenced?

REF2021--->REF2029
Research quality is inferred from prestige and proxy signals (where outputs are published, who authored them)Shifting toResearch quality is shown by clearly explaining what a body of work adds to knowledge, how it does that, and why it matters, not just by listing outputs

Reflective prompt

Where are we still relying on prestige or reputation to do explanatory work for us?

Where next