I've realised that if I'm going to (continue to) be a productive and creative intellectual that makes some kind of valuable contribution, I need to do everything I can to ignore and protect myself from the bureaucratic and intellectually impoverishing madness that is the REF
The idea that a single publication has some kind of essential ontological status that can be captured in a category such as a number like 3 or 4 and that the number awarded in an internal panel would be replicated in an external panel w a different set of academics is ludicrous
It would also be deeply problematic if we started writing for REF and a panel of elite British academics rather than for our research communities
It is also masculinist and colonial to see a single publication as having properties such as originality rather than as being of part of ongoing conversations some of which have been taking place since the conquest of America in the 15th century
And when people review, they don't leave behind their prejudices and assumptions, so anyone doing say, feminist work or anti-racist is automatically at a disadvantage in a world in which sexism and racism are hegemonic
And not just in society, but in the academy. Male authors get cited far more than female authors and white authors cited far more than black and indigenous authors and it would be surprising if these biases did not replicate themselves in the REF
While book and journal peer review is also deeply flawed, there is at least the potential that a good editor will select reviewers that understand and support your feminist and anti-racist goals
And reviewers might provide feedback that substantially improves your work in advance of publication or might provide some kind of constructive intellectual support. Not all reviewers do this, but some do
Whereas the REF panel will simply evaluate already published, peer-reviewed work, meaning that a paper that the reviewers really liked, that is proving useful to other researchers or students could be marked down by a sexist reviewer
The idea that senior colleagues should be asked to rank junior colleagues is one of the most toxic mechanisms in place in the neoliberal academy and there is no mechanism to prevent devastating career consequences that are motivated by malice or prejudice
It makes a mockery of all the other things in place - Athena Swan, race equality, mentoring. What level of arrogance must one possess to give a paper a number grade without being able to know the impact of that paper in the world
Why did so many smart people ever agree to this? And why aren't we enacting a collective refusal to participate in it. Because we urgently need to dismantle discrimination, build collegiality, prevent academic bullying, and decolonize our campuses. REF works against all of these
