Here's a statistic that should make every research director in the UK uncomfortable: REF 2021 assessors had to read an average of 184 impact case studies each. That's roughly two per day, every day, for three months. By case study number 100, the language blurs together. The same phrases appear — "world-leading," "transformative," "significant contribution." The same structure repeats. The same tone, the same cadence, the same institutional fog.
Most impact case studies aren't read. They're scanned for keywords and scored on instinct.
This matters because REF 2029 is coming, and impact now accounts for 25% of the overall assessment. For some units, it's the difference between a 3* and a 4* rating — and the millions in QR funding that follows. Your impact case studies need to do more than tick the boxes. They need to be remembered.
The Problem With Most Impact Case Studies
I've read dozens of impact case studies from REF 2021. The bad ones share a common DNA. They read like they were written by a committee that was terrified of saying anything interesting — because interesting might be wrong, and wrong might be challenged, and challenged might mean a lower score.
So they play it safe. They use the approved vocabulary. They bury the most compelling evidence in paragraph four, after three paragraphs of context that nobody reads. They front-load the institution's name and the grant details, as if the assessor cares about either.
Here's the uncomfortable truth: assessors are human. They get tired. They get bored. They skim. And when they skim, they fall back on heuristics — does this feel impressive? Does this sound like 4* impact? Do I believe this actually happened?
A well-written case study answers those questions before they're asked. A badly written one leaves the assessor searching for reasons to downgrade it.
Seven Principles for Case Studies That Stand Out
1. Lead with the impact, not the research
This is the single most common mistake, and it's the easiest to fix. Most case studies start like this:
"Professor X's research on Y, funded by an EPSRC grant of £Z, led to a new understanding of..."
The assessor has already glazed over. Instead, open with the most tangible, specific piece of impact you can find:
"When the UK government changed its guidance on coastal flood defences in 2024, it cited research from Northumberland University as the primary evidence for the new approach. The revision affects 1.2 million properties along the British coastline and will save an estimated £400 million in avoided flood damage over the next decade."
Now the assessor is paying attention. Now they want to know how this happened. You've earned the right to explain the research — because you've already shown why it mattered.
2. Be ruthlessly specific about reach and significance
REF assessors are asked to judge two things: "reach" (how widely the impact was felt) and "significance" (how much difference it made). Every case study claims to have both. Few demonstrate either convincingly.
Instead of: "The research influenced policy at the highest levels."
Write: "The research was cited in evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee (2023), referenced in the resulting policy paper (May 2024), and incorporated into NICE guideline NG-214 (November 2024)."
Instead of: "The research reached a wide audience."
Write: "The findings were covered by BBC News (audience: 4.2M), The Times (circulation: 360,000), and New Scientist (circulation: 120,000). The university's press release was syndicated to 47 regional newspapers with a combined circulation of 1.8M."
Specificity signals credibility. Vague claims signal the opposite.
3. Give the assessor a human story
Every piece of impact happened because of people — researchers, partners, policymakers, beneficiaries. Most case studies erase these people entirely, reducing them to job titles and institutional affiliations.
A short anecdote — properly placed — does more to humanise a case study than three paragraphs of context. Consider this:
"When Dr Chen first presented her findings to the Environment Agency, the response was polite but sceptical. 'We've heard this before,' one official told her. Six months later, after a pilot study in Norfolk produced results that exceeded every prediction, the same official called her personally to ask: 'How quickly can we scale this?'"
That's 60 words. It tells you more about the nature and credibility of the impact than 600 words of abstract description.
4. Corroborate everything
REF assessors are trained to look for corroboration — independent evidence that the impact you claim actually happened. The best case studies embed corroboration throughout, rather than dumping it in a final paragraph labelled "Evidence."
Every claim should be followed by its proof: a named individual who can verify it, a document that records it, a date that locates it in time. This isn't about length — it's about density. A 2,000-word case study with 15 specific, verifiable claims is more persuasive than a 4,000-word case study with 3.
5. Write for a tired assessor on a Thursday afternoon
REF assessors are academics — often senior ones — reading case studies in addition to their full-time jobs. They're reading on trains, in hotel rooms, late at night, early in the morning. They're not at their freshest.
Write for that person. Short paragraphs. Clear subheadings. Bold for key claims. White space. And above all: make it impossible to miss your strongest evidence. Put the headline finding in the first paragraph. Put your most impressive corroboration where it can't be overlooked. Don't bury the lede — there is no guarantee anyone will dig it up.
6. Respect the five-page limit
REF 2021 allowed five pages per case study. REF 2029 is expected to follow a similar format. Five pages sounds generous until you try to tell a complex story within it.
The most effective case studies I've seen use those five pages with discipline. They cut anything that doesn't directly support the impact narrative. They don't waste space on extended literature reviews or detailed methodology (those belong in the underpinning research section, not the impact statement). They use every sentence to advance the case.
If you find yourself writing "The research built on a long tradition of scholarship in the field of..." — stop. That's not impact. That's throat-clearing. Cut it.
7. Get a professional writer involved early
This sounds self-serving, but hear me out.
Most impact case studies are written by the researchers themselves, often with support from a research office. Researchers are brilliant at research. They are not, typically, brilliant at writing about it for non-specialists. They use the language of their discipline — precise, cautious, hedged — which is exactly the wrong register for a document that needs to persuade a tired assessor on a Thursday afternoon.
A professional writer — someone who understands narrative structure, who can interview a researcher and extract the compelling story, who can translate specialist language into persuasive prose — will produce a better case study in less time than the researcher could manage alone. And the researcher can spend that time doing research, which is what they're paid for.
At Stokel Publishing, we write impact case studies the way journalists write features: find the story, verify the evidence, and tell it in a way that's impossible to ignore. If your REF team is starting to think about case studies for 2029, we should talk.
The Bottom Line
REF 2029 will be the most competitive assessment yet. Every university is getting better at this. The case studies that stand out won't be the ones with the most impressive research — they'll be the ones with the most compelling narrative, the most specific evidence, and the clearest demonstration that something actually changed because of the work your institution did.
That's a writing problem. And it's solvable.