{"id":671,"date":"2026-01-19T14:48:35","date_gmt":"2026-01-19T14:48:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/countercurrents\/?p=671"},"modified":"2026-01-19T14:48:35","modified_gmt":"2026-01-19T14:48:35","slug":"making-the-engagement-and-impact-dimension-of-ref2029-meaningful-for-law-schools","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/countercurrents\/2026\/01\/19\/making-the-engagement-and-impact-dimension-of-ref2029-meaningful-for-law-schools\/","title":{"rendered":"Making the Engagement and Impact dimension of REF2029 meaningful for law schools"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

This blog has been cross-posted on the <\/em>SLSA Blog<\/em><\/a> and Amanda\u2019s blog <\/em>Approaching Law<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\r\n

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

<\/p>\r\n

We have all heard of \u2018impact\u2019. Many of us know something about how it has been assessed since its introduction in the\u00a02014 iteration of the Research Excellence Framework<\/a>\u00a0(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.<\/p>\r\n

This post offers some suggestions as to how we can make \u2018engagement\u2019 and \u2018impact\u2019 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\u00a0Cyprus<\/a>, and combatting hate crime in\u00a0Europe<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0India<\/a>;\u00a0as well as on my role as REF Coordinator at KLS.<\/p>\r\n

First, a note about the\u00a0still evolving<\/a>\u00a0criteria and indicators for the assessment of the Engagement and Impact dimension of REF2029. We\u00a0know<\/a>\u00a0that each Law school will need to submit Impact Case Studies evidencing specific examples of impactful research (\u2018volume\u2019 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 \u2018approa[ch] to maximising the impact of research\u2019. We also\u00a0know<\/a>\u00a0that 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\u00a0\u2018reach\u2019 (how far) and \u2018significance\u2019 (how much)<\/a>; and a new criterion, \u2018rigour\u2019, which may be introduced in order \u2018to ensure that appropriate focus is placed on the process of delivering impact\u2019, which generally includes engagement. It is also worth noting that, while the REF assesses the\u00a0quality of the impact generated by research associated with an institution,\u00a0a parallel scheme, the\u00a0Knowledge Exchange Framework<\/a>(KEF), monitors the quantity and character of collaborations between institutions and external partners.<\/p>\r\n

Humanising our approach<\/h2>\r\n

The most important thing we can do to make engagement, impact, and their assessment, meaningful is to try to humanise our approach to them.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

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\u00a0National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement<\/a>, which is \u2018working to build an inclusive higher education sector where communities can contribute to, and benefit from, knowledge, teaching and research\u2019; and the\u00a0Concordat for engaging the public for research<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\r\n

Humanising our approach also means meeting researchers where they are.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

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\u00ad).\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

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.\u00a0Those of us who wish to develop\u00a0a personal engagement and impact strategy can start with the free\u00a0resources offered by\u00a0Fast Track Impact<\/a>\u00a0including\u00a0Impact Training for Researchers<\/a>, a free online course structured around five sets of weekly tasks which take 10-20 minutes;\u00a0and various\u00a0podcasts, videos, and templates<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

Understanding what \u2018quality\u2019 might look like<\/h2>\r\n

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.<\/p>\r\n

To get a sense of the types of impact that might be generated by our research contributions (\u2018things\u2019 that might \u2018change\u2019) we can look to Annex A of the\u00a0REF2021 Panel Criteria and Working Methods<\/a>, which includes a long illustrative list of types of impact, and indicators through which that impact might be evidenced. We can also look to\u00a0Mark Reed<\/a>, who offers a more compact nine-part \u2018typology\u2019 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\u00a0REF2021 Impact Case Study Database<\/a>\u00a0to see what\u00a0types of impacts were claimed for Impact Case Studies submitted to REF2021.<\/p>\r\n

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.\u00a0Individual REF2021 scores for Impact Case Studies were not published, but we can safely choose examples from the\u00a0Impact submissions of those institutions that were assessed as 100 percent 4*<\/a>. 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 \u2018element\u2019 (conceptual, empirical, normative, methodological) of the contribution made by the researcher:<\/p>\r\n