The University of Sussex¡¯s philosophy department may have lost the services of?Kathleen Stock, but it?will still benefit financially from her research to the tune of tens of?thousands of?pounds, an?analysis has suggested.

Before her resignation from Sussex last year after a?campaign by?students who objected to?her gender-critical views, Professor Stock¡¯s writings and advocacy on?transgender issues were selected by?her department for one of?two impact case studies submitted to the 2021 Research Excellence Framework.

Last week, Research England published Professor Stock¡¯s statement alongside more than submitted to the seven-year national research audit, which it said would provide the potential for ¡°deep dives¡± into research that generated ¡°outstanding impact¡± beyond the academy.

With Sussex¡¯s philosophy department judged joint fourth for impact with an overall rating of 75 per cent, one of its impact studies will have been graded?4* (¡°world-leading¡±) and one?3* (¡°internationally excellent¡±) ¨C with the two outputs accounting for 25?per cent of a unit¡¯s overall score and quality-related (QR) research funding allocation.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

In the case study, titled ¡°Stimulating and Shaping UK Political Debate and Judicial Policy Concerning Gender Identity¡±, Professor Stock¡¯s ¡°research and its often-controversial public engagement¡± is described as having ¡°created space in public and academic settings for more nuanced, evidence-informed debate¡± on this issue.

¡°This has improved the capacity of policymakers to draw informed conclusions responsibly, particularly in relation to issues of single-sex provision, data collection, hate crime, and free speech about sex and gender,¡± it?adds.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

If Professor Stock¡¯s case study is Sussex¡¯s 4*?impact case study ¨C the other focuses on the use of philosophy in childbirth ¨C it could net her former department almost ?48,000 a?year in QR?funding, or ?333,000 over a seven-year period, given the likely value of a top-rated case study, according one expert.

While the final formula to decide how QR funding is awarded has yet to be announced, and the exact QR allocations have not been released either, a 4*?case study is likely to be worth about 3?per cent more than in 2014, said research consultant Simon Kerridge, a former research director at the University of Kent.

With fewer cases studies submitted in the 2021 REF than in 2014 (6,718 versus 6,975) and a higher weighting for impact, ¡°each impact case study is worth slightly more¡± this time around compared with 2014, when an average 4*?impact case study was , Mr Kerridge told Times Higher Education, adding that it would be worth ¡°a?third of a million pounds, assuming the same period to the next assessment¡±. A 3*?impact case study will likely net an institution about ?11,000 a?year, or ?77,000 over the next seven-year framework.

Those figures are likely to highlight new rules introduced after the 2015 Stern review that allowed universities to benefit from QR?research funding for academics who had quit, been sacked, retired or even died.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

One soon-to-be retiree whose impact case study will continue to enrich her old employer is the classicist Dame Mary Beard, whose books, journalism and TV presenting work are described in detail in a submission by the University of Cambridge.

One impact case study that few could argue with is the University of Oxford¡¯s write-up of its work on a Covid vaccine, which coolly notes that the jab has been received by 2?billion people following its rapid development during the pandemic.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com