CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: ref impact case study guidance

  • 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 Impact Case Study: Evidence for REF 2029

    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?

    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.

    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.