Telling tales of impact: as seen through the eyes of user assessors

2020 ◽  
pp. 183-194
Author(s):  
Katherine E. Smith ◽  
Justyna Bandola-Gill ◽  
Nasar Meer ◽  
Ellen Stewart ◽  
Richard Watermeyer

In this chapter we turn our attention to those charged with the task of judging the 'reach' and 'significance' of impact claimed by academic researchers in narrative case studies in REF2014. Knowledge pertaining to how the societal and economic impact of scientific research is evaluated is sparse. This is especially true in the context of the UK's national system of research assessment, the Research Excellence Framework (REF), in light of the confidentiality and rules of non-disclosure enforced by Research England and the UK Research & Innovation (previously the Higher Education Funding Council for England - HEFCE).

2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Macmillan

Like the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) that preceded it, the UK government's proposed Research Excellence Framework (REF) is a means of allocating funding in higher education to support research. As with any method for the competitive allocation of funds it creates winners and losers and inevitably generates a lot of emotion among those rewarded or penalised. More specifically, the ‘winners’ tend to approve of the method of allocation and the ‘losers’ denigrate it as biased against their activities and generally unfair. An extraordinary press campaign has been consistently waged against research assessment and its methods by those involved in architectural education, which I will track over a decade and a half. What follows will question whether this campaign demonstrates the sophistication and superior judgment of those who have gone into print, or conversely whether its mixture of misinformation and disinformation reveals not just disenchantment and prejudice, but a naivety and a depth of ignorance about the fundamentals of research that is deeply damaging to the credibility of architecture as a research-based discipline. With the recent consultation process towards a new cycle of research assessment, the REF, getting under way, I aim to draw attention to the risk of repeating past mistakes.


2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-195

Most architectural education takes place within a university context. There are very considerable advantages to such an arrangement but, for a discipline as broadly based and practically orientated as architecture, there can also be occasional problems if aspects are inappropriately managed. Anyone who doubts this should read Philip Steadman and Bill Hillier's review of the Built Environment category of the UK Higher Education Funding Council's (HEFCE) 2001 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) (pp. 203–207).


Author(s):  
Paul Genoni

The ‘distributed national collection’ is a scheme whereby the British Library envisages completing agreements with other libraries to facilitate the development of specialized subject-based research collections in order to make the most of total national resources. The implementation in Australia of a similar scheme, the Distributed National Collection (DNC), was proposed during the late 1980s and 1990s, with the National Library (NLA) as a main advocate, and a great deal of enthusiasm was generated. The use of Conspectus was envisaged, and a DNC Office was set up at the NLA. It failed for various reasons: Conspectus proved unusable, the NLA had to cut back its own acquisitions, and financial restraints forced other libraries to look after their own interests. In the UK, the initiative for collaborative collection development has been driven by the British Library and the Higher Education Funding Councils. The UK has some features which give it a better chance of success - for instance, the responsible office should be independent of all the main players, whereas in Australia this responsibility could be carried only by the National Library; the UK has a more established network of research libraries, including a number outside the higher education/national library nexus; and the existence of BLDSC is highly beneficial. However, key challenges lie ahead, notably the complexities of managing the scheme, the time needed to put it into operation, the commitment demanded from participants (notably some sacrifice of local interests required for ‘deep resource sharing’), and obtaining the initial acceptance needed from users.


F1000Research ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Joynson ◽  
Ottoline Leyser

In 2014, the UK-based Nuffield Council on Bioethics carried out a series of engagement activities, including an online survey to which 970 people responded, and 15 discussion events at universities around the UK to explore the culture of research in the UK and its effect on ethical conduct in science and the quality of research. The findings of the project were published in December 2014 and the main points are summarised here. We found that scientists are motivated in their work to find out more about the world and to benefit society, and that they believe collaboration, multidisciplinarity, openness and creativity are important for the production of high quality science. However, in some cases, our findings suggest, the culture of research in higher education institutions does not support or encourage these goals or activities. For example, high levels of competition and perceptions about how scientists are assessed for jobs and funding are reportedly contributing to a loss of creativity in science, less collaboration and poor research practices. The project led to suggestions for action for funding bodies, research institutions, publishers and editors, professional bodies and individual researchers.


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 55
Author(s):  
Susan Ashworth

The University of Glasgow Library is continuously developing space and services to meet the need of students and researchers in an evolving higher education landscape. We are an evidence-based organisation and have used tools such as ethnography, surveys and focus groups to understand how users interact with the physical and virtual library. We have also introduced new roles and created new partnerships across the University, particularly in the context of the United Kingdom Government’s policy on open access and funder requirements for the management of research data. This paper will focus on how the University of Glasgow Library is adapting to both the dynamic scholarly communications environment and the demands of our national research exercise and evidence from users and changing student needs. Every six years in the UK, there is a national research assessment exercise called the Research Excellence Framework (REF) and measurement of the performance of research outputs is a key part of that exercise. From 1st April 2016, in order to be eligible for the next REF, the accepted final version of journal articles and conference proceedings must have been deposited into an institutional repository within three months of the date of acceptance and made open access. Many research funders, such as the Wellcome Trust, also have policies on open access. The Library, in close partnership with the University’s Research Office, has taken the lead in publicising these policies to ensure that researchers are aware of their responsibilities. It has also developed new functionality in Enlighten, our institutional repository service to support compliance. In 2015, the Library commissioned an in-depth ethnographic study to help us more readily understand the changing needs of students and how they use library space. An overview of the results of this work and our next steps will demonstrate how we are “enabling progress”.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Calin Gurau

A thriving open access publication (OAP) system represents a sound basis for Open Science development. Unfortunately, it is not yet clear what are the factors determining that academic researchers use OAPs, both as a source of knowledge and relevant references, and as an outlet to present their work to their peers, students and/or the general public. To investigate this topic, we assume an interpretative framework rooted in the institutional theory. Considering the development and evolution of the OAP system as a coherent set of structures, norms and routines, our research aims to (i) identify the factors that determine academic researchers in the business field to become active participants in this system; and (ii) to compare the way in which these factors influence academic researchers’ choices and professional strategies in three different European countries, which are traditionally different in terms of research culture and orientation: France, Romania and the UK. We adopt a research methodology based on semi-structured interviews, as our research objectives require a qualitative approach to identify not only the individual reasons for using the OAP system, but also the influence of the professional environment in shaping these decisions in terms of institutional standards, rules and practices. To collect primary data, we interviewed a total of 42 academics, who are active in both teaching and research in higher education institutions located in France, Romania or the UK (14 respondents from each country). The interviews lasted between 30 and 45 minutes, being conducted either face-to-face or through skype. With the permission of respondents – but under strict confidentiality standards, the interviews were transcribed, coded and analysed. The findings draw a highly complex picture indicating a set of conflicting factors and forces that determine the official perception and use of the OAP system. Although each of the investigated countries has specific features in terms of higher education quality standards and practices, respondents indicated a strong tendency towards uniformization, determined by the global spread of the North American academic system, which directly connects the professional status and evolution of academic researchers to their capacity to publish in peer-reviewed journals that are highly ranked in national or international publications lists (e.g., ISI, ABS, CNRS, FNEGE, etc.). Presently, there are relatively few open access journals included in national/international journal ranking lists, which prevents a widespread use of the OAP system by business academic researchers. Respondents indicated that although they currently use OAPs as a source of knowledge for teaching, they are more reluctant to use them as publication outlets for their research work, or as references in their scholarly publications. This tendency differs between these national education systems, although the general trend indicates a strong convergence of opinions and institutional practices. Overall, the academic publishing landscape can be described as a battlefield between two competing sets of institutions centred around open access and paid access systems, the paid access system still representing the standard for academic quality and professional recognition.


Author(s):  
Emily McIntosh ◽  
Duncan Cross

 The rise in UK university fees has prompted significant investment in the student experience, with increased emphasis on an agenda that promotes student engagement and partnership. Government papers, both white and green, have set out a policymaking agenda and have led to a reorganisation of the UK higher education funding structures, with the dissolution of long-standing funding bodies into the Office for Students. This enshrines chapter B6 of the QAA UK quality code for higher education with regard to student engagement and would appear to be a positive move forward. However, the Office for Students has limited student representation and this raises the question: ‘Who sets this agenda and who are the stakeholders?’ This opinion piece seeks both to highlight the necessity for a joint agenda-setting approach and to engage the community in developing a joint agenda on student engagement and partnership.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document