impact and subject differences
DESCRIPTION
IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES. Jack Meadows Loughborough University. 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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES
Jack Meadows Loughborough University
![Page 2: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Definition of Impact
REF14An 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
![Page 3: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Research Assessment v Impact Assessment
Differences - for example* Local History
* Applied Mathematics
![Page 4: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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.
![Page 5: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
![Page 6: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
HE physics up to 1,000 authorsT. 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…………………..
![Page 7: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
International collaboration by UK authors
Papers with a non-UK co-author as a % of output: 18.5% [1997]; 32.1% [2004]
![Page 8: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Author Subject
Biochemistry Psychology Economics SociologyOne author [%] 19 45 83 75Two authors [%] 46 36 16 21Three authors [%] 22 15 1 3Four authors [%] 13 4 0 1
![Page 9: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Media/Public Interest
* Perceived relevance to audience* Accessibility of subject* Pretty pictures* Query - problems of attribution
![Page 11: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Modes of Communication
One-to-one One-to-many Many-to-manyTraditional X X ? IT X X X
![Page 12: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
![Page 13: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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.
![Page 14: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
* Informal modes of communication often have greater impact* IT excellent for informal communication
![Page 15: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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
![Page 16: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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.
![Page 18: IMPACT AND SUBJECT DIFFERENCES](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062500/56815a9d550346895dc822a5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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.