Impact on whom? Contrasting research impact with public engagement

2020 ◽  
pp. 99-114
Author(s):  
Katherine E. Smith ◽  
Justyna Bandola-Gill ◽  
Nasar Meer ◽  
Ellen Stewart ◽  
Richard Watermeyer

This chapter considers how the concept of ‘research impact’ has been developed and articulated with respect to two, potentially very different audiences: policymakers and the broader public. This chapter includes an analysis of recent REF (Research Excellence Framework) and research funder guidance, statements and opportunities relating to these two groups. This chapter also draws on interview data with a range of research funders

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 608-618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rita Marcella ◽  
Hayley Lockerbie ◽  
Lyndsay Bloice ◽  
Caroline Hood ◽  
Flora Barton

Early- and mid-career researchers will shape the future of library and information science (LIS) research and it is crucial they be well placed to engage with the research impact agenda. Their understanding of research impact may influence their capacity to be returned to research excellence framework (REF), the UK’s research quality assessment tool, as well as their ability to access research funding. This article reports the findings of a qualitative study exploring how the research impact agenda is influencing early- and mid-career researcher behaviour. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 early- and mid-career researchers. While enthusiastic about creating lasting impact, participants lack effective institutional support to maximise their own research impact. Participants demonstrate uncertainty about what REF impact is. The authors conclude that while there is evidence LIS academics engage with practice to maximise impact, they lack support in building impact and the discipline needs to do more to create opportunities for the academy and the profession to coalesce to identify objects for and deliver impactful research.


BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. e022357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A Lynch ◽  
Shanthi A Ramanathan ◽  
Sandy Middleton ◽  
Julie Bernhardt ◽  
Michael Nilsson ◽  
...  

ObjectiveThere is a growing need for researchers to demonstrate impact, which is reliant on successful research translation. The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council funded a Centre of Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery (CRE-Stroke) to enhance collaborations between researchers conducting different types of stroke rehabilitation research. The purpose of this study was to explore opinions about research translation held by CRE-Stroke researchers conducting preclinical and clinical research, in terms of scope, importance, responsibility and perceived skills and knowledge.DesignMixed-methods study, comprising a paper-based survey and semistructured interviews. Interview data were inductively coded and thematically analysed. Survey and interview data were compared and synthesised.Participants55 (7 preclinical, 48 clinical) researchers attending a CRE-Stroke research forum completed a paper-based survey. Semistructured interviews with 22 CRE-Stroke (5 preclinical, 17 clinical) researchers were conducted.ResultsResearch translation was described as translating to other research and translating to clinical practice and policy. Most researchers (n=54, 98%) reported that research translation was important, particularly in terms of generating research impact, but the most common sign of project completion reported by researchers (n=7, 100% preclinical; n=37, 77% clinical) was publication. Most researchers (preclinical n=4, 57%; clinical n=37, 77%) reported having responsibility for translating research, but less than half reported having the necessary skills (n=1, 14% preclinical; n=17, 35% clinical) and knowledge (n=3, 43% preclinical; n=19, 40% clinical). Differing opinions about who should be responsible for translating findings to clinical practice were expressed.ConclusionsStroke rehabilitation researchers appear confident to translate their research via the traditional mechanism of publications. To optimise impact, clarity is needed regarding who is best placed to translate research findings to clinical practice and policy. Education and skills development to apply broader translation processes are needed to maximise the use of research at all stages.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e0168533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Terämä ◽  
Melanie Smallman ◽  
Simon J. Lock ◽  
Charlotte Johnson ◽  
Martin Zaltz Austwick

2015 ◽  
pp. 12-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Marginson

An analysis of the recent Research Excellence Framework data, released in the UK in late 2014, this article critically evaluated this major program. The REF purports to measure research impact of UK universities and researchers, but often does not adequately measure what is important.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 230-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Copley

Societal benefits of public engagement were recognized as 'impact' from research in the UK's recent Research Excellence Framework (REF), which determines an allocation of central government funding for universities and shapes the landscape for university researchers undertaking such activities. This paper shares experience from a successful REF Impact Case Study based on a programme of informing/inspiring-type public engagement, illustrating how engagement goals can match definitions of impact for the REF, and summarizing types of evidence used to demonstrate 'reach' and 'significance' of impact in media engagement, face-to-face engagement and online engagement, which represent common activities undertaken by many researchers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document