 |
 |
I was hoping to muse abit with you all. Today I was having a conversation with a palliative and supportive care research group that I am part of. As the UK academics will be aware 'research impact' as a big discourse/ideal/ideal at the moment and 'demonstrating impact' is tied in no small way to funding of research/entire departments. However, whenever I hear 'impact' discussed in the school of nursing it is effectively used as shorthand for 'impact on patient care'. I decided to take umbridge with this today (as is my talent). I don't object to research having an impact on patient care, but I equally don't feel it must have impact. People somewhat agreed with me in the research group but there was a definite sense that ALL research should EVENTUALLY lead to direct patient benefit. Thereby giving a very narrow, linear and inevitable direction to what impact can be, in that if research is to have impact there must always be actual or potential patient benefits. Obviously, if one were in an English or Philosophy department 'impact' of research doesn't find it's final home in patient benefit (if we can even quite identify what patients are of course). So, without dragging this email out in an ill-thought-out manner, do people think we can or should think about impact without reference to patient benefit? If we don't how else may a 'nursing academic' argue that their work creates impact? Maurice