By Henry Lovett, policy & public affairs officer, The Physiological Society

Lord Willetts and Bridget Lumb

At the recent Labour, Conservative and SNP party conferences, The Physiological Society asked  policy makers to consider an important question: ‘TEF vs. REF: Are Teaching and Research Now Adversaries?’

The successful fringe events discussed how the Government’s development of a Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) will relate to the already existing Research Excellence Framework (REF). TEF is a way to measure the strength of teaching at UK universities and reward the institutions accordingly with a rating, and perhaps more importantly, a fee increase. This should then provide prospective students with some more information on which to base their choice of institution. Another consequence may be that universities start to see their teaching as a more important indicator of their stature, whereas in the past their research strength has been the largest contributor to their reputation.

These sound like laudable aims; indeed, who would argue against better courses and informed choices? Not us. However, as is so often the case, there is the risk of unintended consequences. With the separate Teaching and Research Excellence Frameworks, the actual teaching and research activities going on in universities risk becoming entirely separated as well. Staff may be railroaded into only teaching or only researching, moving away from the tradition of ‘scholarship’ covering both areas. Changes to courses as a result may lead to them bearing no relation to the specialisms at the university where they are taught, which could give the students a reduced insight into the cutting edge of their field. Courses could also become much more didactic, putting students into the mind-set of turning up, learning some facts, and leaving to get a job; rather than engaging in self-directed inquiry and learning the transferable skills of a rounded education and experience of research. Read more »