Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES Jack Meadows Loughborough University.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES Jack Meadows Loughborough University."— Presentation transcript:

1 IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES Jack Meadows Loughborough University

2 Definition of Impact REF14 An effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia RQF The beneficial application of research to achieve social, economic, environmental and/or cultural outcomes

3 Research Assessment v Impact Assessment Differences - for example * Local History * Applied Mathematics

4 Comments from Pilot Study Panels are likely to take into account the relative contribution of research from different institutions to an impact where these are clearly of a different order.

5

6 HE physics up to 1,000 authors T. AaltonenT. Aaltonen23, A. Abulencia24, J. Adelman13, T. Affolder10, T. Akimoto55, M. G. Albrow17, S. Amerio43, D. Amidei35, A. Anastassov52, K. Anikeev17, A. Annovi19, J. Antos14, M. Aoki55, G. Apollinari17, T. Arisawa57, A. Artikov15, W. Ashmanskas17, A. Attal3, A. Aurisano53, F. Azfar42, P. Azzi-Bacchetta43, P. Azzurri46, N. Bacchetta43, W. Badgett17, A. Barbaro-Galtieri29, V. E. Barnes48, B. A. Barnett25, S. Baroiant7, V. Bartsch31, G. Bauer33, P.-H. Beauchemin34, F. Bedeschi46, S. Behari25, G. Bellettini46, J. Bellinger59, A. Belloni33, D. Benjamin16, A. Beretvas17, J. Beringer29, T. Berry30, A. Bhatti50, M. Binkley17, D. Bisello43, I. Bizjak31, R. E. Blair2, C. Blocker6, B. Blumenfeld25, A. Bocci16, A. Bodek49, V. Boisvert49, G. Bolla48, A. Bolshov33, D. Bortoletto48, J. Boudreau47, A. Boveia10, B. Brau10, L. Brigliadori5, C. Bromberg36, E. Brubaker13, J. Budagov15, H. S. Budd49, S. Budd24, K. Burkett17, G. Busetto43, P. Bussey21, A. Buzatu34, K. L. Byrum2, S. Cabrera16,j, M. Campanelli20, M. Campbell35, F. Canelli17, A. Canepa45, S. Carillo18,b, D. Carlsmith59, R. Carosi46, S. Carron34, B. Casal11, M. Casarsa54, A. Castro5, P. Catastini46, D. Cauz54, M. Cavalli- Sforza3, A. Cerri29, L. Cerrito31,f, S. H. Chang28, Y. C. Chen1, M. Chertok7, G. Chiarelli46, G. Chlachidze17, F. Chlebana17, I. Cho28, K. Cho28, D. Chokheli15, J. P. Chou22, G. Choudalakis33, S. H. Chuang52, K. Chung12, W. H. Chung59, Y. S. Chung49, M. Cilijak46, C. I. Ciobanu24, M. A. Ciocci46, A. Clark20, D. Clark6, M. Coca16, G. Compostella43…………………..A. AbulenciaJ. AdelmanT. AffolderT. AkimotoM. G. AlbrowS. AmerioD. AmideiA. AnastassovK. AnikeevA. Annovi J. AntosM. AokiG. ApollinariT. ArisawaA. ArtikovW. AshmanskasA. AttalA. AurisanoF. AzfarP. Azzi-BacchettaP. AzzurriN. BacchettaW. BadgettA. Barbaro-GaltieriV. E. BarnesB. A. BarnettS. BaroiantV. BartschG. BauerP.-H. BeaucheminF. BedeschiS. BehariG. BellettiniJ. BellingerA. BelloniD. BenjaminA. BeretvasJ. BeringerT. BerryA. BhattiM. BinkleyD. BiselloI. BizjakR. E. BlairC. BlockerB. BlumenfeldA. BocciA. BodekV. BoisvertG. BollaA. BolshovD. BortolettoJ. Boudreau A. BoveiaB. BrauL. BrigliadoriC. BrombergE. BrubakerJ. BudagovH. S. BuddS. BuddK. BurkettG. BusettoP. BusseyA. BuzatuK. L. ByrumS. CabreraM. CampanelliM. CampbellF. CanelliA. CanepaS. CarilloD. CarlsmithR. CarosiS. Carron B. CasalM. CasarsaA. CastroP. CatastiniD. CauzM. Cavalli- SforzaA. CerriL. CerritoS. H. ChangY. C. ChenM. ChertokG. ChiarelliG. ChlachidzeF. ChlebanaI. ChoK. ChoD. ChokheliJ. P. ChouG. ChoudalakisS. H. ChuangK. ChungW. H. ChungY. S. ChungM. CilijakC. I. CiobanuM. A. CiocciA. ClarkD. ClarkM. CocaG. Compostella

7 International collaboration by UK authors Papers with a non-UK co-author as a % of output: 18.5% [1997]; 32.1% [2004]

8 Author Subject Biochemistry Psychology Economics Sociology One author [%] Two authors [%] Three authors [%] Four authors [%]

9

10 Media/Public Interest * Perceived relevance to audience * Accessibility of subject * Pretty pictures * Query - problems of attribution

11 Modes of Communication One-to-oneOne-to-many Many-to-many Traditional X X ? IT X X X

12

13 What government really wants from academics is ‘wise advice’. It is this wise council that means academics are extensively used by government on advisory boards, expert panels, as witnesses and panel chairs these ‘academic service’ roles can sometimes not be directly related to the academics core research..... policymakers explicitly want academic expertise rather than necessarily the results of a specific piece of research (or even set of research findings). However these expertise or academic service roles are not always considered in themselves to be evidence of impact by the REF process.

14 * Informal modes of communication often have greater impact * IT excellent for informal communication

15 Documented Evidence [A & B] A [Medicine and Biological sciences] * Documented evidence of influence on health policy * Critical reviews in the media Plus another fourteen points B [Physical sciences and Engineering] * Documented evidence of policy debate * Traceable reference to inclusion of research in industry standards/ guidance Plus another twelve points

16 Documented Evidence [C & D] C [Social sciences] * Improvements to legal and other frameworks * Development of resources to enhance professional practice D [Humanities] * Publication and sales figures, web-site hits, etc. * Citations in reviews outside academic literature

17 Twitter and Research Tweet about each new publication, website update or new blog that the project completes. To gauge feedback, you could send a tweet that links to your research blog and ask your followers for their feedback and comments.

18 Blogs Seed Media Group's Research Blogging Awards honor the outstanding bloggers who discuss peer-reviewed research. With over 1,000 blogs registered at ResearchBlogging.org and 10,000 posts about peer-reviewed journal articles collected, it is time to recognize the best of the best.


Download ppt "IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES Jack Meadows Loughborough University."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google