Scottish Parliament engagement and REF 2029: Strengthening Impact Case Studies

The Scottish Parliament consists of 129 elected Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) who scrutinise the Scottish Government, make new laws on devolved matters and debate issues that matter to the people of Scotland.

The Scottish Parliament draws on the expertise of many academics to support its work, and this blog highlights how researchers can use that engagement to strengthen the case studies they prepare for the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2029.

We recognise the important role the REF plays in assessing the excellence of research in UK HEIs and shaping research funding. We are committed to supporting academics and knowledge‑exchange colleagues across the research community to evidence this impact and to make the most of the opportunity REF provides to demonstrate how engagement with, and insights from, researchers strengthen the Parliament’s work.

Why parliamentary engagement matters for REF

The REF requires HEIs to demonstrate the impact and wider societal benefit of their research.  Contributing to policy development and scrutiny processes offers a significant route for the academic community to engage and have impact that can be reported in impact case studies for REF. 

What REF panels are looking for

REF guidance acknowledges that links between research and impact can be non-linear, and that demonstrating impact in policy contexts is not always straightforward, due to the myriad of factors and stakeholders that influence scrutiny outcomes, and the timescales required for policy changes to take effect. 

However, REF definitions provide a broad framework, acknowledging that:

• Impact includes ‘an effect on, change or benefit to’ an ‘… activity, attitude, awareness, behaviour, capacity, policy … understanding’. 
• Engagement includes ‘reciprocal flows of knowledge, understanding, or skills including planned or spontaneous relationships that inform research, build trust, influence practice or policy, and/or support public participation.’ 

In practice, REF assessment panels are typically looking for:

• Clear and credible link between research and impact.
• Evidence of reach and significance.
• Corroborating evidence from independent sources.
• Coherent narrative, even where the impact pathway is non-linear.

Pathways from engagement to impact

Engagement with the Scottish Parliament typically contributes to impact through series of linked stages:

Research → Engagement → Influence on scrutiny → Observable change

Opportunities for academics to contribute include:

• Shaping the nature of a committee inquiry/workplan.
• Informing legislative proposals (new legislation e.g. Members Bill or amendments).
• Informing committee inquiry recommendations.
• Informing parliamentary debate/sharing expertise.
• Building relationships – with Members or staff.

These activities may contribute to impact individually or cumulatively over time.

Evidencing engagement and impact

REF case studies that draw on engagement with the Scottish Parliament need to provide evidence of the pathway by which their expertise/research insights either enabled, or contributed to, impact.

Useful forms of evidence include:

• Links to oral or written evidence e.g. cited in official meetings of the Parliament (referred to as the Official Report), on ParliamentTV or reflected in published Committee reports.
• References to a specific role (e.g. as an advisor) listed on Committee webpages and a description of what you did in this capacity and your associated impact.
• Authorship of SPICe fellowship outputs e.g. briefings, blogs.
• Demonstrating where your evidence is reflected in recommendations of a Committee inquiry report and/or subsequent changes in policy or practice.
• Testimonials from Parliament staff or elected Members that highlight how your evidence informed parliamentary work/shaped committee recommendations.

Strong case studies typically combine multiple points of evidence to demonstrate a credible link between an academic’s research, their input to the process and the impact.

Building a strong case study – practical guidance:

• Demonstrate the relevance of your research to the scrutiny topic.
• Set out a clear narrative linking your research to engagement to impact (including impact associated with subsequent policy implementation/application).
• Set out how engaging with the Scottish Parliament sits in the context of a wider programme of your engagement and impact work on an issue.
• Describe the parliamentary engagement route/s clearly and reflect the associated parliamentary processes (e.g. stages of scrutiny) where your evidence was drawn on.
• Describe the impact that this engagement had or contributed to.
• Avoid over-claiming the impact of a single point of engagement
• Provide multiple points of verification to demonstrate both engagement and subsequent impact.
• Use testimonials judiciously.
• Avoid confusing parliamentary engagement with government engagement (and associated terminology).

Engaging with the Scottish Parliament – Impact Case Study examples from REF 2021

The three examples below provide an illustration of how researchers drew on their experience of engaging with the Scottish Parliament as part of REF 2021 Impact Case Studies and reflect a variety of engagement approaches.

Case study: Hearing Different Voices: The Diversity of Committee Witnesses in the Scottish Parliament and Beyond (University of Lincoln)

Context: Impact on parliamentary processes

Engagement route: SPICe fellowship

Research impact: Changes to internal parliamentary guidance and processes to improve witness diversity, resulting evidence provided of subsequent changes in witness diversity 

Supporting evidence:

• Quotes from senior parliament staff and Presiding Officer referencing the value and impact of the research
• Link to published Scottish Parliament briefing authored by the academic highlighting research findings and recommendations
• Links to published papers of Scottish Parliament Conveners where the research was discussed and subsequently where the actions in response to the research findings were agreed
• Verification of resulting increase in proportion of witnesses that were women provided.

Case study: Instigating the Repeal of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act (University of Cambridge)

Context: Changing the law

Engagement route: Written and oral evidence

Research impact: Evidence to inform legislative scrutiny drawn on and cited by parliamentarians, reflected in parliamentary Committee reports and parliamentary decision to repeal law aligns with the evidence provided by the academic.

Supporting evidence:

• Quotes from MSPs highlighting how they valued the authors’ research insights as shared during parliamentary scrutiny
• Link to ParliamentTV footage of the academic giving evidence
• Links to where the authors evidence is quoted in the Committee inquiry report and parliamentary debates during different stages of legislative scrutiny

Case study: Security in Scotland: defining, operationalising and protecting the Social Security (Scotland) Act principles through participation, scrutiny and oversight (University of Ulster)

Context: Informing new legislation

Engagement route: Sharing primary research and oral evidence

Research impact:  Research expertise informed parliamentary scrutiny of draft legislation with final legislation reflecting several of the proposals put forward by the authors.  Evidence of the subsequent impact of implementing one aspect of these proposals for social security claimants shared.

Supporting evidence:

• Links to Scottish Parliament Official Report and Parliament TV footage of the academic providing evidence to the Committee
• Evidence of where recommendations made by the Committee in their inquiry report on the Bill mirror the evidence provided by the authors
• Testimonial from a Scottish Parliament clerk highlighting the role that the research played in enabling Committee Members to understand the legislation, identifying priority issues for scrutiny and attributing specific recommendations in the Stage 1 Committee inquiry report to the authors research and evidence