REF 2014
REF 2014 Results
²ÝÝ®ÉçÇø has made continuing efforts to sustain and enhance research excellence.Ìý The results of our submission to REF 2014Ìýwere as follows:
2014 REF Results
Overall Quality Profiles
| UoA 3 Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality Level | FTE Cat A Staff | 4* | 3* | 2* | 1* | Unclassified |
| % of research Ìý activity | 8.2 | 4 | 35 | 59 | 2 | 0 |
Ìý
| UoA 4 Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality Level | FTE Cat A Staff | 4* | 3* | 2* | 1* | Unclassified |
| % of research Ìý activity | 6.00 | 8 | 19 | 64 | 9 | 0 |
Ìý
| UoA 24 Anthropology and Development Studies | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality Level | FTE Cat A Staff | 4* | 3* | 2* | 1* | Unclassified |
| % of research Ìý activity | 8.6 | 8 | 44 | 36 | 12 | 0 |
Ìý
| UoA 28 Modern Languages | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality Level | FTE Cat A Staff | 4* | 3* | 2* | 1* | Unclassified |
| % of research Ìý activity | 10.7 | 34 | 58 | 6 | 2 | 0 |
Ìý
| UoA 36 Media, Communication and Cultural Studies | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality Level | FTE Cat A Staff | 4* | 3* | 2* | 1* | Unclassified |
| % of research Ìý activity | 9.2 | 16 | 43 | 25 | 16 | 0 |
Ìý
Detailed Breakdown of Quality Profiles
| UoA 3 Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality Level | FTE Cat A Staff | 4* | 3* | 2* | 1* | Unclassified |
| Outputs | 8.2 | 6.9 | 34.5 | 55.2 | 3.4 | 0.0 |
| Impact | 8.2 | 0.0 | 30.0 | 70.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Environment | 8.2 | 0.0 | 37.5 | 62.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Overall | 8.2 | 4 | 35 | 59 | 2 | 0 |
Ìý
| UoA 4 Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outputs | 6.0 | 0.0 | 26.1 | 65.2 | 8.7 | 0.0 |
| Impact | 6.0 | 40.0 | 0.0 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Environment | 6.0 | 0.0 | 12.5 | 62.5 | 25.0 | 0.0 |
| Overall | 6.0 | 8 | 19 | 64 | 9 | 0 |
Ìý
| UoA 24 Anthropology and Development Studies | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outputs | 8.60 | 12.5 | 34.4 | 34.4 | 18.7 | 0.0 |
| Impact | 8.60 | 0.0 | 60.0 | 40.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Environment | 8.60 | 0.0 | 62.5 | 37.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Overall | 8.60 | 8 | 44 | 36 | 12 | 0 |
Ìý
| UoA 28 Modern Languages | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outputs | 10.70 | 35.9 | 53.8 | 7.7 | 2.6 | 0.0 |
| Impact | 10.70 | 30.0 | 70.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Environment | 10.70 | 30.0 | 60.0 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Overall | 10.70 | 34 | 58 | 6 | 2 | 0 |
Ìý
| UoA 36 Media, Communication and Cultural Studies | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outputs | 9.20 | 25.0 | 52.8 | 13.9 | 8.3 | 0.0 |
| Impact | 9.20 | 0.0 | 20.0 | 50.0 | 30.0 | 0.0 |
| Environment | 9.20 | 0.0 | 30.0 | 40.0 | 30.0 | 0.0 |
| Overall | 9.20 | 16 | 43 | 25 | 16 | 0 |
Scoring Explained
| Score | Definition |
|---|---|
| Four star | Quality that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour. |
| Three star | Quality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and Ìý rigour but which falls short of the highest standards of excellence. |
| Two star | Quality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and Ìý rigour. |
| One star | Quality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance and Ìý rigour. |
| Unclassified | Quality that falls below the standard of nationally recognised work. Or work which Ìý does not meet the published definition of research for the purposes of this Ìý assessment. |
In forming the overall quality profile, sub-panels have used Ìýa sub-profile for each of the three elements of the assessment – outputs (65%) , impact (20%) and environment (15%).
REF 2014 Code of Practice
²ÝÝ®ÉçÇø was committed to encouraging the submission of all of its excellent researchers to REF, including those whose volume of research output may have been limited for reasons covered by the Equality Act 2010.
²ÝÝ®ÉçÇø’s submission to REF was informed by an overarching consistent policy of equality and inclusion and a detailedÌýÌýEquality Code of PracticeÌýhas been developed and approved by the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) to underpin this.
The development and implementation of this Code of Practice is a requirement of theÌýfunding bodies.Ìý
Research and Knowledge Exchange Development Unit
Show Contacts
Ref 2014 Impact Case Studies
