Making the Engagement and Impact dimension of REF2029 meaningful for law schools

Amanda Perry-Kessaris, Professor of Law, Director of Research and Innovation, and REF Coordinator, Kent Law School

This blog will be cross-posted on the Kent Law School Blog, Countercurrents, and Amanda’s blog, Approaching Law.

Keywords: REF, Engagement and Impact, Law

Image 1: Modes of research contribution. Amanda Perry-Kessaris (2025)

We have all heard of ‘impact’. Many of us know something about how it has been assessed since its introduction in the 2014 iteration of the Research Excellence Framework (REF). But many of us also find it hard to make meaningful connections between that framework, which addresses the full range of disciplines and institutions, and our experience as diverse legal researchers working in diverse ways, on diverse topics, in a diversity of institutions.

This post offers some suggestions as to how we can make ‘engagement’ and ‘impact’ more meaningful to ourselves, to those with whom we (seek to) engage and impact upon, and to those legal researchers we may be charged with supporting. It draws on my own attempts to make meaningful connections between the REF and my experiences around peace-building in Cyprus, and combatting hate crime in Europe and India;  and on my role as REF Coordinator in my own institution.

First, a note about the still evolving criteria and indicators for the assessment of the Engagement and Impact dimension of REF2029. We know that each Law school will need to submit Impact Case Studies evidencing specific examples of impactful research (‘volume’ expected to be the set at the number of E&R FTE in post across 2025-2027 divided by 10); and a narrative statement setting out our ‘approa[ch] to maximising the impact of research’. We also know that emphasis will be placed on assessing engagement as well as impact, and that impact is likely to be assessed on the familiar REF2021 criteria of ‘reach’ (how far) and ‘significance’ (how much); and a new criterion, ‘rigour’, which may be introduced in order ‘to ensure that appropriate focus is placed on the process of delivering impact’, which generally includes engagement. It is also worth noting that, while the REF assesses the quality of the impact generated by research associated with an institution, a parallel scheme, the Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF), monitors the quantity and character of collaborations between institutions and external partners.

Humanising our approach

The most important thing we can do to make engagement, impact, and their assessment, meaningful is to try to humanise our approach to them.

This means helping researchers to meet those who might use (or otherwise be affected by) their research where they are. Here the most valuable assistance tends to come from resources which focus on (upstream) ethics and practicalities around engagement and co-production, rather than (downstream) impact. Good starting points are the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement, which is ‘working to build an inclusive higher education sector where communities can contribute to, and benefit from, knowledge, teaching and research’; and the Concordat for engaging the public for research, a set of principles which aims to strengthen public engagement across the research and higher education sector, drawn up by funders of research in the UK.

Humanising our approach also means meeting researchers where they are.

One way of doing this is to connect engagement and impact activities, and their assessment under REF2029, to other, more familiar, aspects of the wider research system. First, we can think of engagement and impact as one of an array of modes in which we researchers might (try to) contribute to the world (Image 1). We all (try to) contribute to research conducted by others through our formal and informal publications. Some of us also (try to) contribute to non-research activities. We might do this by developing pedagogical materials, and/or by engaging or co-producing things with non-academics; and in so doing we might have an impact (change things) in the world beyond research. Second, whichever mode we legal researchers are operating in (contributing to the research of others; contributing to non-research activities), we can think of the nature of our contribution as consisting of one or more of the following elements: conceptual (ways of thinking/speaking about things), empirical (ways evidencing things), normative (recommendations about things), and/or methodological (ways of doing, or finding out, things­). 

Another way of meeting researchers where they are is to start from the premise that each of us is a potentially impactful researcher. Some of us know that we want our research to make a meaningful contribution to the world beyond academic research. Even those of us who are unsure can consider whether our research could make such a contribution; decide whether to act as if we are going to make such a contribution; and then decide whether to try to make it happen. Those of us who wish to develop a personal engagement and impact strategy can start with the free resources offered by Fast Track Impact including Impact Training for Researchers, a free online course structured around five sets of weekly tasks which take 10-20 minutes; and various podcasts, videos, and templates.

Understanding what ‘quality’ might look like

We can make both the concepts of engagement and impact, and the criteria according to which they will be assessed, more meaningful by looking at the REF guidance and practice.

To get a sense of the types of impact that might be generated by our research contributions (‘things’ that might ‘change’) we can look to Annex A of the REF2021 Panel Criteria and Working Methods, which includes a long illustrative list of types of impact, and indicators through which that impact might be evidenced. We can also look to Mark Reed, who offers a more compact nine-part ‘typology’ of impacts (change) that research can make. Some of these relate to types of change (e.g. understanding and awareness, attitudes, policy, capacity or preparedness); and others to the type of domain in which the change occurs (e.g. economic, environmental, health and well-being, education, human rights). We can also explore the REF2021 Impact Case Study Database to see what types of impacts were claimed for Impact Case Studies submitted to REF2021.

To get a sense of what quality looks like through the lens of REF, we can reflect on what scored well under previous iterations of the assessment exercise. Individual REF2021 scores for Impact Case Studies were not published, but we can safely choose examples from the Impact submissions of those institutions that were assessed as 100 percent 4*. Below are some examples, selected to offer a useful range of transnational and local levels; types of domain (commercial, government, societal); and types of change (policy, awareness, infrastructure, funding, institutional culture). For each example, I highlight one or more ‘element’ (conceptual, empirical, normative, methodological) of the contribution made by the researcher:

• International Guidelines for the Protection of Schools and Universities from Military Use during Armed Conflicts, the international endorsement of the Safe Schools Declaration, and consequent reduction in use by the military during armed conflicts (University of Greenwich) details how the research of the late Steven Haines generated normative direction, empirical evidence, and methodological tools that changed awareness, attitudes and behaviours of governments and international organisations around the military use of schools.

• Protecting and Promoting Human Rights in Public Supply Chains in the UK, Europe and around the globe (University of Greenwich) details how Olga Martin-Ortega’s research generated normative direction, a conceptual framework, and methodological tools which changed how public and private bodies perceive and address human rights violations in their supply chains.

• Safeguarding and revitalising local authority-led governance of public parks (University of Leeds) details how the research of Anna Barker and colleagues, co-produced with public authorities, generated an empirical evidence base that changed in how parks in Leeds were perceived and managed.

• Transforming organisational learning in policing through platforms of research co-production and knowledge exchange (University of Leeds) details how Adam Crawfords’ ‘conceptualisation and methodologies of research co-production and partnership-working’ changed how police in the North of England engage with research.

Supporting and celebrating others

Impact and engagement activities, even those that score highly in the REF, can be damaging to researchers, and to those who are affected by research. The prioritisation of engagement and impact, especially via the REF, can undermine academic and public appreciation for the inherent value of research. With these caveats, there is no doubt that reading a strong Impact Case Study can be profoundly uplifting.

So, it is worth noting that we can make engagement and impact more meaningful to ourselves by supporting the work of others. We can recognise those who have experience in, or skills relevant to, engagement and/or impact, whether they have been acquired or applied in the course of research, teaching, or clinical practice. We can encourage researchers who are impact-curious to seek support for impact generating activities via the Socio-Legal Studies Association Impact Grant scheme. We can share what we know, which is what I have tried to do here.

We can also make engagement and impact more meaningful to ourselves by celebrating those who demonstrate excellence, including by nominating them for a Socio-Legal Studies Association Impact Prize. But surely the most meaningful celebrations come from those who have used or otherwise been affected by research. So I leave you with a tribute made by Lord Robin Teverson, Patron of Human Rights at Sea, on the passing of Steven Haines, whose REF2021 Impact Case Study I mentioned above: “Steven was not just a great advocate of human rights at sea; he was fundamental to the real progress that has been made in recent years. Many seafarers across our seas and oceans, with little power over their own situations, have already benefited from Steven’s dedication to their human rights.”