Hi Michael, Ellen and Melanie

 

Thanks all—I think the NCCPE analysis offers a useful evidence-based perspective on the types of impacts that were evidenced (as does the recent post by Melanie et al.). Together, these outputs shed some light on what was submitted to REF 2014.

 

We know much less, empirically speaking, about the decisions that were made not to submit impact case studies and evidence of impact, and whether the REF 2014 rules effectively ruled out forms of, approaches to, impact. So that’s one concern, that researchers/UoAs are self-censoring.

 

Michael raises the issue of a focus on economic impacts. My concern, and I’m sure many share this, is the long-term influence on research. Will a focus on economic impact downplay and de-prioritise other forms of impact and other forms of research? As Ellen suggests, does the assessment become a marketing exercise for a small number of universities, working to generate economic impact with a small number of stakeholders/end-users? That would be a disservice to researchers and to the stakeholders, end-users and members of the public with whom they could be engaging.

 

Hence, would introducing an assessment of rigour improve or hinder the REF 2014 system? Is it a solution in search of a problem? Would it make the system more equitable, meritocratic and transparent?

 

Michael—in my experience researchers find policy impacts to be: a) difficult to evidence in terms of specific impacts; and b) a ‘risky’ pathway to follow when planning for impact, not least because of the potential for considerable effort to yield very little reward.

 

Best wishes

Rick

 

 

The Stern review of REF2014 also opined on the definition of impact. Talking to one of its members recently, one concern is that most impact case studies concentrated on economic impact.

 

This meant that there was little mention of any “engagement” work that researchers get up to. 

 

Another missing area was impact on policy. I know that today’s governments prefer policy based evidence over evidence based policy but I have read quite a few case studies, sometimes even in science and technology, where the research had significant impact on policy.

 

For these reasons, it makes much sense for the PEST community to chip in with any thoughts on the recognition of “engagement” in the next REF.

 

I worked on some case studies and had to beat them around the head to look beyond economic outcomes. Sticking rigidly to that disadvantages subjects that find it hard to make money for anyone.

 

MK

 

 

 

 

 

 

HEFCE’s current consultation on the REF closes on March 17th.  It invites suggestions for how to enhance the guidance about impact and public engagement. Following the recent publication of the NCCPE’s review of how public engagement fared in REF 2014, and discussions about how to respond to the HEFCE consultation, I was asked to produce a blog post. In the post, I introduce the idea of asking panels to assess the ‘rigour’ of the process described in an impact case study, as well as assessing the ‘reach and significance’ of the claimed impacts.

 

The post is here: https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/blog/assessing-excellence-research-impact

 

If you’re have a role or responsibility for research impact please have a read. Do the ideas introduced in this post look useful? Would they improve the consistency of the assessments across all academic domains?  What would you change, revise or adapt to improve on the ideas briefly outlined in this post? Share your thoughts by leaving a comment on the NCCPE site.

 

**********************************************************************

**********************************************************************

psci-com how-to: Once subscribed, send emails for the list to [log in to unmask]. If not subscribed, either subscribe here https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=psci-com or send requests for items to be posted on your behalf to [log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe (or silence messages while away) send an email (any subject) to [log in to unmask] with one of the following messages (ignoring text in brackets)

• signoff psci-com (to leave the list) • set psci-com nomail (to stop receiving messages while on holiday) • set psci-com mail (to resume getting messages)

Contact list owner at [log in to unmask] Small print and JISCMail acceptable use policy https://sites.google.com/site/pscicomjiscmail/the-small-print

**********************************************************************