scholarly journals The impact agenda and critical social research in education: Hitting the target but missing the spot?

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Laing ◽  
Laura Mazzoli Smith ◽  
Liz Todd
Keyword(s):  
Educational Research ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Social Impact ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
Impact Pathways ◽  
The Impact

This paper considers whether the impact agenda that has developed over the last decade in UK universities is likely to help create the conditions in which critical educational research makes a more visible difference to society. The UK audit of university research quality (the research excellence framework (REF) now includes an assessment of impact. Impact pathways are requirements of both national and European Union research funding bodies and the Australian Research Council. Issues in the assessment of the social impact of research are explored by the European projects Evaluating the impact of EU SSH, social science humanities, research (IMPACT-EV) and ACcelerate CO-creation by setting up a Multi-actor Platform for Impact from Social Sciences and Humanities (ACCOMPLISSH). For many UK researchers the institutional focus on influencing the world outside the academy has brought welcome support and resources to engage with society and may appear to bring universities back to something approaching their original civic identity. However, evidence from across the academy suggests that impact as depicted in REF impact case studies does not accurately represent the experience either of the academic research endeavour or of impact as it may be more broadly construed. Analysis reported here of 85 highly rated impact case studies in the education unit of assessment of the 2014 REF suggests there is a risk that the REF impact process will embed a shift against qualitative and theoretically driven methodology that is often found in socially critical educational research. Impact is postured as neutral, hiding the neoliberal drive towards research models based on implementation, evaluation and policy. There is a need to create spaces in universities for rethinking of the impact agenda, perhaps looking at value or social creation instead of, or as an integral aspect of, impact.

Between relevance and excellence? Research impact agenda and the production of policy knowledge

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (6) ◽  
pp. 895-905 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justyna Bandola-Gill
Keyword(s):  
Social Impact ◽  
Knowledge Exchange ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Publicly Funded ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Traditional Research ◽  
Academic Practices ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract The recent moves towards incentivising ‘impact’ within the research funding system pose a growing challenge to academic research practices, charged with producing both scientific, and social impact. This article explores this tension by drawing on interviews with sixty-one UK academics and policymakers involved in publicly-funded knowledge exchange initiatives. The experiences of the interviewed academics point to a functional separation of academic practices into three distinct types: producing traditional research, translating research, and producing policy-oriented research. These three types of practices differ in terms of both the epistemic qualities of the produced knowledge and its legitimacy as valid academic work. Overall, the article argues that the relationship between relevance and excellence of research within the impact agenda is characterised by simultaneous contradiction and co-dependence, leading to hybridisation of academic knowledge production and expansion of the boundaries of policy expertise into the traditionally-academic spaces.

scholarly journals Impact and the Research Environment

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-35
Author(s):  
Debbie Savage ◽  
Gareth Loudon ◽  
Ingrid Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Narrative Analysis ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Design History ◽  
Research Environment ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

How to successfully create impact from academic research is the focus of much debate. Discussions often centres on the role of discipline, researcher skills and behaviour, or institutional systems to capture impact evidence, but little consideration is given to the relationship between research impact and the research environment. Focussing on the Impact Case Studies submitted to Unit of Assessment 34: Art & Design: History, Practice and Theory, this research used Content and Narrative Analysis to review a sample of the most and least successful Impact submissions as ranked by Times Higher Education. The aim was to identify the characteristics of high-scoring Impact Case Studies to inform strategies for supporting the generation of research impact, but what emerged was evidence of a nuanced relationship between research environment and research impact. For Research and Management Practitioners, these findings highlight a need to extend beyond the development of training, advice and databases and respond directly to the core purpose and ethos of research impact. This can be achieved through the cultivation of an open, flexible and dynamic research environment capable of responding to institutional and researcher needs in order to allow impact to flourish.

Accounting scholars and journals rating and benchmarking

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee D. Parker ◽  
James Guthrie
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Higher Education System ◽  
International Trends ◽  
Editorial Review ◽  
The Impact

PurposeThis editorial aims to consider contemporary issues for accounting scholars, in particular journals rating and benchmarking, arguing that current international trends are risking academic research quality.Design/methodology/approachThis paper takes the form of an editorial review and argument.FindingsThe paper acknowledges that accounting academic research is important to the higher education system, careers and publishers. However, its quality and the construction and measurement of the quality of accounting journals and research impact on society continue to be hotly debated.Research limitations/implicationsThe editorial offers scope for accounting academics to engage in debate about the impact of journal rankings and benchmarking on their teaching and research, important issues in higher education, not only in Australia, but also internationally.Originality/valueThe paper provides commentary on the “quality” of accounting research and measurement practices associated with rating and benchmarking academic journals.

Research in Different Categories of UK Universities

1997 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 304-313
Author(s):  
W. O. George ◽  
A. N. Hill
Keyword(s):  
Weighted Average ◽  
Unit Group ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
Peer Rating ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
Broad Subject ◽  
The Impact

In this paper, the origins and characteristics of the 102 current UK universities are briefly traced and the outcomes of recent assessments of research quality are summarized for all universities and for the 69 subject units within which assessment was made. The quality of research in a subject unit, group of subject units or complete institution is measured by a weighted average score based on a peer rating of submitted subject units from each university and the numerical values obtained are described within the limitations of the methodology developed. The authors consider the scores in terms of the characteristics of each university and the broad subject areas, science, engineering, social sciences and humanities. They then discuss the industrial link with research in terms of recent government policy inputs, university research outcomes and the impact of market forces on universities from diminishing patterns of some income streams.

scholarly journals Defining and evaluating the impact of cross-disciplinary conservation research

2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 442-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANNA C. EVELY ◽  
IOAN FAZEY ◽  
XAVIER LAMBIN ◽  
EMILY LAMBERT ◽  
SARAH ALLEN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Impact ◽  
Environmental Problems ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Conservation Research ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Impact

SUMMARYCross-disciplinary research is advocated as a way of improving understanding of the complexity of environmental problems; cross-disciplinary projects, centres and academic institutes have increased. However, there is confusion over the nature of cross-disciplinary research. Through review of papers defining themselves as cross-disciplinary that aim to address conservation problems, and by standardizing the definition of cross-disciplinary research, it is possible to evaluate the potential research impact on peers and practitioners. When papers were reclassified by authors, those reclassified as transdisciplinary were perceived to have a greater impact on practitioners, and those reclassified as non cross-disciplinary had the greatest impact on colleagues. Having clear definitions for types of cross-disciplinary research would help establish a firm foundation, not only for improving research quality, but also for evaluating research impact. While the number of cross-disciplinary studies is increasing, cross-disciplinary research falls short of integrating disciplinary methods in much depth and does not have much impact on participants outside of academia.

scholarly journals Understanding and evaluating the impact of integrated problem-oriented research programmes: Concepts and considerations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian M Belcher ◽  
Karl Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Agricultural Research ◽  
Conservation Status ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Systems Transformation ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Researchers and research organizations are under increasing pressure to demonstrate that their work contributes to positive change and helps solve pressing societal challenges. There is a simultaneous trend towards more engaged transdisciplinary research that is complexity-aware and appreciates that change happens through systems transformation, not only through technological innovation. Appropriate evaluation approaches are needed to evidence research impact and generate learning for continual improvement. This is challenging in any research field, but especially for research that crosses disciplinary boundaries and intervenes in complex systems. Moreover, evaluation challenges at the project scale are compounded at the programme scale. The Forest, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA) research programme serves as an example of this evolution in research approach and the resulting evaluation challenges. FTA research is responding to the demand for greater impact with more engaged research following multiple pathways. However, research impact assessment in the CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) was developed in a technology-centric context where counterfactual approaches of causal inference (experimental and quasi-experimental) predominate. Relying solely on such approaches is inappropriate for evaluating research contributions that target policy and institutional change and systems transformation. Instead, we propose a multifaceted, multi-scale, theory-based evaluation approach. This includes nested project- and programme-scale theories of change (ToCs); research quality assessment; theory-based outcome evaluations to empirically test ToCs and assess policy, institutional, and practice influence; experimental and quasi-experimental impact of FTA-informed ‘large n’ innovations; ex ante impact assessment to estimate potential impacts at scale; and logically and plausibly linking programme-level outcomes to secondary data on development and conservation status.

scholarly journals The impact of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: a systematic review and critical analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Cruz Rivera ◽  
Derek G. Kyte ◽  
Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi ◽  
Anita L. Slade ◽  
Christel McMullan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Real World ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly collected in clinical trials and should provide impactful evidence on the effect of interventions on patient symptoms and quality of life. However, it is unclear how PRO impact is currently realised in practice. In addition, the different types of impact associated with PRO trial results, their barriers and facilitators, and appropriate impact metrics are not well defined. Therefore, our objectives were: i) to determine the range of potential impacts from PRO clinical trial data, ii) identify potential PRO impact metrics and iii) identify barriers/facilitators to maximising PRO impact; and iv) to examine real-world evidence of PRO trial data impact based on Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact case studies. Methods Two independent investigators searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL+, HMIC databases from inception until December 2018. Articles were eligible if they discussed research impact in the context of PRO clinical trial data. In addition, the REF 2014 database was systematically searched. REF impact case studies were included if they incorporated PRO data in a clinical trial. Results Thirty-nine publications of eleven thousand four hundred eighty screened met the inclusion criteria. Nine types of PRO trial impact were identified; the most frequent of which centred around PRO data informing clinical decision-making. The included publications identified several barriers and facilitators around PRO trial design, conduct, analysis and report that can hinder or promote the impact of PRO trial data. Sixty-nine out of two hundred nine screened REF 2014 case studies were included. 12 (17%) REF case studies led to demonstrable impact including changes to international guidelines; national guidelines; influencing cost-effectiveness analysis; and influencing drug approvals. Conclusions PRO trial data may potentially lead to a range of benefits for patients and society, which can be measured through appropriate impact metrics. However, in practice there is relatively limited evidence demonstrating directly attributable and indirect real world PRO-related research impact. In part, this is due to the wider challenges of measuring the impact of research and PRO-specific issues around design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Adherence to guidelines and multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential to maximise the use of PRO trial data, facilitate impact and minimise research waste. Trial registration Systematic Review registration PROSPERO CRD42017067799.

Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities—A literature review

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Budtz Pedersen ◽  
Jonas Følsgaard Grønvad ◽  
Rolf Hvidtfeldt
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Methodological Pluralism ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Impact

Abstract This article explores the current literature on ‘research impact’ in the social sciences and humanities (SSH). By providing a comprehensive review of available literature, drawing on national and international experiences, we take a systematic look at the impact agenda within SSH. The primary objective of this article is to examine key methodological components used to assess research impact comparing the advantages and disadvantages of each method. The study finds that research impact is a highly complex and contested concept in the SSH literature. Drawing on the strong methodological pluralism emerging in the literature, we conclude that there is considerable room for researchers, universities, and funding agencies to establish impact assessment tools directed towards specific missions while avoiding catch-all indicators and universal metrics.

The Man With the Leaking Bucket: Ethnography, Journalism, and the Quest for the Transformative Self

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 515-523
Author(s):  
Max Mauro
Keyword(s):  
Social Life ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Digital Revolution ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
Siegfried Kracauer ◽  
The Status ◽  
Long Time ◽  
German Jewish ◽  
Intellectual Journey

This article looks into the status and identity of ethnography by paying attention to the ideas of transformation and becoming, and to the meanings of “reality” in post postmodern times. Based on a personal reflection about the intellectual journey of the author, and his transition from journalism to academic research, it first provides an illustration of the complicated relationship between journalism, and journalistic practices, with social research during the 20th century. It highlights the trailblazing work of German–Jewish intellectual Siegfried Kracauer during the Weimar years, whose eclectic attention to popular culture and social theory has been for a long time overlooked. Following the postmodern turn, reflexivity has taken center stage in ethnographic methods, but this has not diminished the differences within social sciences and humanities in the way the subject, the researcher, is perceived and interpreted. A contested area of debate remains that of representation, and particularly, the realization that nothing meaningfully exists outside the process of representation. However, this point is further complicated by the status of “reality” in the age of the implosion of social life through the conflation of the private and the public brought about by the digital revolution.

Dimensions of Impact in the Social Sciences

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tina Haux
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Impact Pathways ◽  
The Social ◽  
Policy Models ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Research And Policy

Academics are increasingly required to demonstrate their impact on the wider world. The aim of this book is to compare and contextualise the dimensions of impact within the social sciences. Unlike most other studies of the 2014 Research Excellence Framework impact case studies, this book includes case studies from three different sub-panels (Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work and Politics and International Relations), which in themselves capture several disciplines, and therefore allows for a comparison of how impact and academic identify are defined and presented. The impact case studies are placed in an analytical framework that identifies different types of impact and impact pathways and places them in the context of policy models. Finally, it provides a comparison across time based on interviews with Social Policy professors who are looking back over 40 years of being involved as well as analysing the relationship between research and policy-making. This long view highlights successes but also the serendipitous and superficial nature of impact across time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document