Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 12 of 76

10 BizEd JULY | AUGUST 2015 research+insights caption_forza_7pt ILLUSTRATION BY JAMES STEINBERG Identifying Impact HOW ONE U.K. SYSTEM MEASURES THE REACH OF RESEARCH IS IT POSSIBLE to accurately assess the impact of scholarly research and let funding bodies use these assessments to determine which universities should receive funding? The answer appears to be yes, at least in the U.K. There, research outputs from universities are assessed every five years to determine future funding allocations from government. In 2014, for the first time, the Research Excellence Framework (REF) included an assessment of research impact. This component was worth 20 percent of the score awarded to each institution. RAND Europe, an independent research institute that focuses on pol- icy and decision making, worked with higher education funding councils in the U.K. to evaluate how well the system worked in its first outing. RAND Europe evaluated the way uni- versities prepared submissions as well as the ways submissions were assessed by panels of academics and research users. In particular, the organization attempted to identify the benefits and burdens schools realized under the new system, outline the intended and unintended consequences, recommend ways to improve the process, and high- light best practices. Among the organization's findings: The impact component of the REF 2014 encouraged scholars to think more broadly and strategically about their research and helped universities better understand the impact of their research. Nonetheless, complying with the impact component consumed time and resourc- es for people and institutions; academics considered the process burdensome, but research users did not. On the positive side, REF 2014 is perceived as contributing to a cultural shift in which institutions and individ- uals are focusing more on the current and potential impacts of their research. And a majority of academics and research users felt that the REF 2014 process enabled them to assess impact fairly and reliably. RAND Europe identified areas for discussion and improvement, includ- ing managing the variations in the way the process is conducted, avoiding the risk of false claims, and clarifying the processes for assessing di'erent kinds of impact. Catriona Manville, senior analyst and lead author on the evaluation re- ports, says, "Given that the process for assessing impact was new, our evalua- tion shows that it worked, and it worked well. REF 2014 now provides a valuable working model for measuring impact in other countries and research systems." For project information and links to reports, visit REF2014impact.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of BizEd - JulAug2015