A REF impact case study is a structured, evidence-backed narrative — capped at 2,200 words under REF 2029 rules — that links a submitting unit’s research to a verifiable benefit beyond academia. Research offices build the underlying evidence base years in advance, because the case study is only as strong as the corroborating sources, testimonials and documentary trail collected while the impact is happening, not reconstructed after the fact.
A REF impact case study is defined by Research England as a submission describing “an effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia” that occurred during the eligible assessment window.
- What is a REF impact case study, structurally?
- How is the underpinning-research link established and evidenced?
- What evidence standards does REF 2029 require?
- What are the REF 2029 thresholds — and the common template pitfalls?
- Answer-first questions research offices ask
- What this means for research office workflow
- Outlook: preparing before the submission window opens
What is a REF impact case study, structurally?
A REF impact case study (ICS) is one of the fixed-format submissions that make up the Engagement and Impact (E&I) element of the Research Excellence Framework. Under REF 2029 guidance published by Research England on 10 December 2025, engagement and impact accounts for 25% of a submitting unit’s overall REF score — up from 20% under REF 2014’s original impact weighting.
Each ICS follows the same template Research England used for REF 2021: a summary of the impact, an account of the underpinning research, a details-of-impact narrative, a references list, and a list of corroborating sources. Panels assess every case study against two criteria only — reach (the extent and diversity of beneficiaries) and significance (the degree of benefit conferred) — regardless of whether the impact occurred locally or internationally.
How is the underpinning-research link established and evidenced?
The underpinning-research link is the single most scrutinised element of an ICS. REF 2029 guidance defines “underpinned by” as meaning the research “made a distinct and material contribution to the impact taking place, such that the impact would not have occurred or would have been significantly reduced without the contribution of that research.” Panels grade an ICS unclassified if this link cannot be demonstrated.
Research offices evidence the link with:
- Up to six references to specific research outputs, which may include any output type in the REF output glossary — not just journal articles.
- An explicit account of how the research was disseminated, exploited or taken up by users or beneficiaries.
- Confirmation that the underpinning research was produced by staff working in the submitting unit at the relevant time, even if those staff have since left the institution.
Notably, REF 2029 has removed the requirement that underpinning research meet a 2* quality threshold — research now only needs to meet the general REF definition of research, which widens the pool of eligible work that can anchor a case study.
What evidence standards does REF 2029 require?
Corroborating evidence exists to verify the claims made in the narrative, not to substitute for them. REF 2029 guidance caps this section at a maximum of 10 sources, of which no more than five may be named individuals who could be contacted to confirm a claim. Sources must be external to the submitting institution and must state, explicitly, which claim in the case study each one corroborates.
Accepted evidence types include published reports, web links used solely for verification, confidential documents, and factual statements already supplied to the institution by users or beneficiaries. Research England has stated that panels will not follow URLs to gather additional supporting information beyond what is cited — evidence has to stand on its own within the submitted material.
| REF cycle | Impact/E&I weighting | Underpinning research quality bar | Substantive-text word limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| REF 2014 | 20% | 2* threshold applied | ~4 pages (no fixed word cap) |
| REF 2021 | 25% | 2* threshold applied | ~4–5 pages (no fixed word cap) |
| REF 2029 | 25% | 2* threshold removed | 2,200-word hard maximum |
What are the REF 2029 thresholds — and the common template pitfalls?
The number of case studies a unit must submit is set by its volume measure in full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff, not by discretion. Research England’s REF 2029 Section 6 guidance sets out the following bands:
| Volume measure (FTE) | Number of ICS required |
|---|---|
| Up to 9.99 (option 1) | 1 |
| Up to 9.99 (option 2) | 2 |
| 10 to 19.99 | 2 |
| 20 to 39.99 | 3 |
| 40 to 59.99 | 4 |
| 60 to 89.99 | 5 |
| 90 to 119.99 | 6 |
| 120 to 169.99 | 7 |
| 170 or more | 8, plus one further ICS per additional 50 FTE |
Submitting fewer than the required number is not permitted without penalty: any missing case study is automatically graded unclassified, which drags down the whole impact sub-profile. The most common template pitfalls research offices report are:
- Treating the suggested 100/600/1,500-word split across summary, underpinning research and details-of-impact sections as a rigid quota rather than a guide — the 2,200-word figure is a hard ceiling across all three, not per section.
- Submitting an ICS whose underpinning research falls outside the eligible production window (1 January 2008 to 31 December 2028 for REF 2029) or whose claimed impact falls outside the eligible impact window (1 August 2020 to 31 July 2028).
- Failing to distinguish a genuinely “continuing” case study from a new one — Research England treats an ICS as continuing only if both the underpinning research and the impact type/beneficiaries substantially overlap with a REF 2014 or REF 2021 submission.
- Relying on testimonial evidence that does not name which specific claim it corroborates, which auditors and panels are instructed to discount.
Answer-first questions research offices ask
How much is a REF impact case study worth?
Impact case studies are not scored in cash terms directly, but funding follows the REF results. Writing in 2023 for Research Professional, higher education analyst Simon Kerridge estimated that a single 4* impact case study from a very large unit of assessment could be worth over £2 million in funding allocation across a REF cycle, as cited by the LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog.
How many impact case studies are required for REF 2029?
The number scales with a unit’s volume measure in FTE staff, from one or two case studies for units under 10 FTE up to eight or more for units of 170+ FTE, plus one additional case study per further 50 FTE. Submitting below the required number results in an automatic unclassified grade for each missing case study.
How do you write a REF impact case study?
A compliant ICS follows the fixed template: a short summary of the impact, an account of the underpinning research with up to six output references, and a details-of-impact narrative explaining how the research led to the benefit, who benefited, and by how much — supported by up to 10 external corroborating sources, all within a 2,200-word hard limit.
Does the REF assess impact directly, or only through case studies?
The REF assesses impact exclusively through the submitted case studies and the accompanying strategy, people and research environment (SPRE) statement — it does not independently audit an institution’s broader societal footprint. Panels judge only the reach and significance evidenced within the submitted ICS documents themselves.
What this means for research office workflow
Because corroborating evidence must be collected contemporaneously to survive audit, research administration teams increasingly run impact tracking as a continuous process, not a pre-deadline scramble. That means logging engagement activity, securing dated testimonials, and tagging outputs to funders’ ROR and ORCID identifiers, since REF 2029’s additional data fields for funded research — grant number, funder, amount in GBP, formal partners — must be captured at source, not reconstructed later.
This shifts case-study development from a late-cycle writing exercise to ongoing portfolio management: horizon-scanning which groups have plausible non-academic reach, briefing academics on admissible corroboration, and stress-testing drafts against the “distinct and material contribution” bar before submission.
Outlook: preparing before the submission window opens
REF 2029’s guidance modules are still being finalised through 2026, with sub-panel criteria expected to add further detail on how engagement activity and responsible research practices will be recognised within the existing template. Institutions that treat evidence-gathering as infrastructure — built into research administration workflows from the point a grant is awarded — will have a materially easier path to a compliant, well-evidenced case study than those that begin drafting only once the submission system opens.
