CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: ref 2029 impact case studies

  • REF Impact Case Study Template for REF 2029

    A REF impact case study template follows the same five-part structure used since REF2014: a summary, underpinning research, references, a details-of-impact narrative, and corroborating sources. Institutions can start REF 2029 drafts now by mapping verified REF2021 evidence into this structure, using the framework’s new “continued case study” route rather than starting from a blank page.

    A REF impact case study is a five-page narrative, assessed on reach and significance, that traces a demonstrable benefit to society, the economy, policy, health or culture back to underpinning research produced at the submitting institution.

    What does the REF impact case study template require?

    The REF2021 template, set out in Annex G of the REF’s Guidance on Submissions, has five sections with indicative word limits: a 100-word summary of the impact, a 500-word account of the underpinning research, up to six references to that research, a 750-word details-of-impact narrative, and up to ten sources that corroborate the claims. Combined with a header recording the submitting unit and a Yes/No flag for whether the case study continued from REF2014, the whole document runs to five pages.

    That structure did not appear from nowhere. It is a direct descendant of the REF2014 template, which used the same five sections across four pages, with an indicative combined word limit of around 2,200 words for the summary, research and impact sections together. REF2014 case studies had no header field and no continuation flag, because there was no prior REF cycle to continue from.

    • Summary of the impact — a jargon-free, high-level statement of who benefited and how.
    • Underpinning research — the specific findings, insights or outputs that generated the impact.
    • References to the research — evidence the underpinning work meets the required quality bar.
    • Details of the impact — the causal narrative linking research to real-world change.
    • Sources to corroborate — named, checkable evidence: reports, data, testimonials.

    How REF2021 and REF2014 evidence maps onto REF 2029

    REF 2029 guidance, published in stages at 2029.ref.ac.uk, confirms an explicit “continued impact case study” (Continued ICS) route: where impact reported in REF2014 or REF2021 has carried on, institutions submit updated evidence of its extended reach and significance rather than building an entirely new narrative. This makes REF2021 case study files the single most useful evidence source for a REF 2029 draft.

    Feature REF2014 REF2021 REF 2029
    Page limit 4 pages 5 pages Expected to retain the 5-section structure (Section 6 guidance)
    Header/continuation flag None Added — submitting-team header plus REF2014 continuation flag Continued ICS route formalised for REF2014/REF2021 evidence
    Underpinning research quality threshold 2-star minimum 2-star minimum 2-star threshold lifted
    Assessed criteria Reach and significance Reach and significance Reach and significance (unchanged)
    Element weighting Impact 20% Impact 25% Engagement and Impact 25% (confirmed 10 December 2025)

    In practice, mapping means pulling the Section 4 “details of the impact” narrative and Section 5 sources straight from a REF2021 submission, then adding a fresh evidence layer covering activity since the REF2021 census date. Where a REF2021 case study scored well, the underpinning research and early testimonials rarely need rewriting — only extending.

    What has changed for REF 2029 impact case studies

    Three REF 2029 decisions directly affect how a case study template should be drafted. First, the three assessment elements have been renamed: Outputs is now “Contribution to Knowledge and Understanding” (CKU), Impact is now “Engagement and Impact”, and Environment is now “Strategy, People and Research Environment” (SPRE). Second, following a sector-wide pause to the exercise announced by science minister Patrick Vallance in September 2025 and results from the SPRE/PCE pilot, the four UK funding bodies revised the element weightings on 10 December 2025: CKU now carries 55%, Engagement and Impact remains at 25%, and SPRE was downgraded from a proposed 25% to 20%. Third, the previous requirement that underpinning research reach at least 2-star quality to support a case study has been lifted for REF 2029, widening the pool of eligible research.

    A recommended maximum of five outputs per researcher — the REF2021 norm — was also reinstated in the December 2025 revision, alongside removal of the previous minimum-of-one requirement. None of this changes the five-section case study format, but it does change what belongs in Section 2: underpinning research no longer needs a 2-star quality justification, freeing space to strengthen the impact narrative itself.

    Step-by-step: building your REF 2029-ready draft now

    Research offices do not need to wait for final REF 2029 guidance to start drafting. The following sequence turns existing REF2021 files into a working REF 2029 draft.

    1. Pull every REF2021 case study, plus any REF2014 case studies whose impact has continued, into a single tracking sheet.
    2. Flag each as a likely Continued ICS (impact still developing) or a candidate for a wholly new case study.
    3. Copy the REF2021 Section 4 “details of the impact” text into the REF2029 draft template as a starting narrative, not a final one.
    4. Add a dated evidence log for activity since the REF2021 census date — new testimonials, adoption figures, policy citations.
    5. Re-check underpinning research against REF 2029’s revised eligibility rules, since the 2-star threshold no longer applies.
    6. Update Section 5 sources with current, checkable corroboration — expired links and outdated contacts are a common cause of lost marks.
    7. Hold the draft against the December 2025 weighting change: with Engagement and Impact still at 25%, case study quality remains as consequential as it was in REF2021.

    Common questions on REF impact case study templates

    How do you write an impact case study for REF?

    Start from the five-section template — summary, underpinning research, references, details of the impact, and corroborating sources — and build the narrative around reach and significance. Use specific, dated evidence and named sources rather than general claims, since REF panels assess case studies on demonstrable, traceable impact.

    How much is a REF impact case study worth?

    There is no fixed cash value, but Simon Kerridge’s widely cited 2023 estimate, reported via the LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog, put a single 4-star impact case study from a very large Unit of Assessment at over £2 million in QR funding across a REF cycle. Value scales with UoA size and star rating.

    How many impact case studies are needed for REF 2029?

    REF2021 linked the number of required case studies to a unit’s submitted Category A staff FTE, on a banded formula rising with size. REF 2029’s Engagement and Impact guidance is expected to retain a broadly similar FTE-linked approach, though the exact bandings are confirmed in the funding bodies’ published Section 6 guidance rather than fixed in advance.

    Is REF2021 evidence still valid for REF 2029?

    Yes. REF 2029’s Continued ICS route was created specifically so that impact first reported in REF2014 or REF2021 can be resubmitted with updated evidence of its extended reach and significance, rather than requiring institutions to build every case study from scratch.

    For research administration teams, the practical implication is straightforward: REF2021 case study files are not archive material, they are the working draft for REF 2029. The template’s core five-section shape has survived two REF cycles and, on current guidance, is expected to survive a third — what changes each cycle is the weighting attached to the impact element and the eligibility rules around underpinning research, not the narrative structure itself. Institutions that start mapping REF2021 evidence into REF 2029 drafts now, rather than waiting for final guidance, will have a material head start once submission windows open.

  • REF 2029 Impact Case Studies: What’s Changing From REF 2021

    REF 2029 impact case studies (ICS) keep the same three-part narrative template as REF2021 but tighten the evidence standard: a hard 2,200-word cap replaces the old five-page limit, the 2* quality threshold for underpinning research is removed, the smallest units may now submit just one ICS instead of two, and funded-research submissions must add ROR and ORCID identifiers. These changes were confirmed in Research England’s official REF 2029 guidance, published 10 December 2025, and apply to submissions covering the 2020–2028 impact period.

    An impact case study is the structured evidence record — summary, underpinning research and details of impact, corroborated by external sources — through which a REF submitting unit demonstrates the reach and significance of a specific, research-derived benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy, health or the environment beyond academia.

    Contents

    What has actually changed for REF 2029 impact case studies?

    REF 2029 preserves REF2021’s basic architecture — impact case studies scored on “reach and significance,” submitted through the same three-section narrative — but revises four load-bearing rules. Word count moves from an approximate page limit to a hard 2,200-word cap. The 2* research-quality threshold for underpinning research is scrapped entirely. The minimum case-study count for the smallest units drops from two to one. And funded ICS must now supply Research Organization Registry (ROR) and ORCID identifiers alongside grant data.

    Research England frames this as evolutionary, not structural: the guidance states it wanted “to limit the overall degree of change for this exercise.” Institutions that ran REF2021 will recognise the process shape; the real shift is in what counts as eligible evidence.

    How does the REF 2029 word limit compare with REF2021’s five-page rule?

    REF2021 capped impact case studies at five pages, with indicative (non-binding) word counts per section. REF 2029 replaces that with an explicit, enforced ceiling: 2,200 words across the three substantive narrative fields — Summary of the impact, Underpinning research, and Details of the impact — entered directly into the REF Submission system rather than uploaded as a formatted document.

    Research England’s own analysis found REF2021 submissions typically used around 2,000 words within the five-page allowance — so the 2,200-word ceiling is a modest increase on observed practice, not a real-terms cut, despite the headline shift from “pages” to “words.”

    Element REF2021 REF 2029
    Format limit 5 pages (indicative word counts) Hard 2,200-word cap (3 narrative sections)
    Suggested section split Not formally specified Summary ~100 / Underpinning research ~600 / Details of impact ~1,500
    Underpinning research quality threshold 2* (“recognised internationally”) Removed — must only meet the REF definition of research
    Minimum ICS for smallest units (<9.99 FTE) 2 1 (2 optional)
    References to research Maximum 6, no word limit Maximum 6, no word limit (unchanged)
    Corroborating sources Maximum 10 Maximum 10, max 5 named individual contacts (unchanged)
    Funded-research data fields Funder, grant number, amount Adds ROR identifier and ORCID for each named researcher

    How many impact case studies does each unit need to submit?

    The number of required ICS still scales with a submitting unit’s volume measure (FTE), but the smallest bracket now has a choice. Units below 9.99 FTE may submit either one or two ICS — Research England “encourages” two but permits one where submitting two would place undue pressure on individual staff in very small units.

    • Up to 9.99 FTE: 1 or 2 ICS (submitter’s choice; REF2021 required 2)
    • 10–19.99 FTE: 2 ICS
    • 20–39.99 FTE: 3 ICS
    • 40–59.99 FTE: 4 ICS
    • 60–89.99 FTE: 5 ICS
    • 90–119.99 FTE: 6 ICS
    • 120–169.99 FTE: 7 ICS
    • 170+ FTE: 8, plus one further ICS per additional 50 FTE

    Submitting fewer than the required number results in an “unclassified” grade for each missing case study. Units cannot submit more than the required number — institutions must select their strongest evidenced examples rather than represent the full spread of unit activity.

    What’s different about the evidence and underpinning research standard?

    The single biggest substantive change is removal of the 2* quality threshold. Under REF2021, underpinning research had to meet a quality bar “recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour.” REF 2029 guidance states this requirement was “burdensome, exclusive of valuable local research and impact and limiting to the diversity of the underpinning research” — it now only needs to satisfy the general REF definition of research.

    REF 2029 also explicitly invites narrative discussion of engagement strategies and responsible research practices, addressing feedback that units were previously reluctant to describe engagement-led impact because REF2021’s template did not name it as a valid evidence category, even though panels rewarded it when present.

    Corroboration rules are largely unchanged: institutions may cite up to 10 external sources and name up to five individual contacts, and URLs may only verify claims already made in the text — panels will not follow links to gather supplementary evidence.

    Does the REF 2029 impact case study template change?

    Structurally, no — REF 2029 “will maintain the REF 2021 submission template structure for ICS.” The three narrative fields, the references section (max six outputs) and the sources-to-corroborate section (max ten) carry over unchanged. Two additions are new:

    • Diverse contributor recognition: an optional, unassessed field to name students, engagement professionals and research-technical staff who contributed to the impact — published in the ICS database with consent.
    • Expanded funded-research data: units must supply the funder’s ROR identifier, ORCID per named researcher, funding programme, grant number, grant amount (GBP), formal partners and the impact’s country/nation, where research was externally funded. This supports funder post-assessment analysis, not panel scoring.

    Eligibility windows reset for the new cycle: impact must occur between 1 August 2020 and 31 July 2028, underpinned by research first made public between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2028. Unlike REF2021, there is no COVID extension window — impacts submitted under REF2021’s optional COVID window cannot be resubmitted except as context for a continuing case study.

    Answer-first Q&A

    How many impact case studies are needed for REF 2029?

    The number is set by a unit’s volume measure (FTE), from a minimum of one for units under 9.99 FTE up to eight-plus-one-per-additional-50-FTE for units of 170 FTE or more. REF2021 required a minimum of two; REF 2029 allows the smallest units to submit just one.

    How much is a REF impact case study worth?

    Impact carries a 25% weighting in the REF quality profile. Per a 2023 Research Professional analysis cited by the LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog, a single 4-star ICS from a very large Unit of Assessment could be worth over £2 million in QR funding across a REF cycle — illustrating why evidence quality, not volume, drives strategy.

    What is an impact case study for REF?

    It is a structured written submission, entered via the REF Submission system, describing a specific research-derived effect on the economy, society, culture, policy, health or environment. Each case study cites underpinning research outputs and external evidence corroborating the claimed reach and significance.

    What is the REF 2029 definition of impact?

    REF 2029 defines impact as an effect on, change to, or benefit for the economy, society, culture, public policy, health, the environment or quality of life beyond academia — including harm reduction — occurring in any geographic location. Purely academic impacts on research knowledge are explicitly excluded from this element.

    What this means for research administrators

    The practical effect is a lower barrier to impact stories built on locally significant or applied research that would previously have failed the 2* threshold, plus more room to credit engagement work and professional-services contributors often invisible in REF2021 submissions. The trade-off is stricter word discipline — 2,200 words is a hard, system-enforced limit, not a page guideline that can be stretched with formatting.

    Institutions should build ROR and ORCID capture into impact-tracking workflows now: these identifiers become mandatory for any ICS underpinned by externally funded research, and retrofitting historic funding records close to the deadline is a known source of REF-cycle administrative burden.

    REF 2029 guidance was published in draft form from December 2025 and is scheduled for formal finalisation during 2026, so submitting units should track Research England’s published change log rather than treat any single module as final until then.