Abstract:Academics are increasingly being asked to demonstrate the impact of their research beyond the walls of the academy. Societal impact measures were introduced as part of the Research Excellence Framework exercise in the UK in 2014 with a number of other countries, including Australia, considering similar assessments. As societal impact measures continue to proliferate there will be significant implications for academics, institutions, and academic libraries to document and support these activities. Information s… Show more
“…Such requirements at institutional levels can strongly influence the culture and practice of reporting. While such measures and tools are emerging 2 , empirical evaluation of their validity and reliably is still lacking [28]. Various organizations internationally have proposed mechanisms and indicators for assessment of research impact.…”
Background: Increasingly, health researchers must demonstrate the impact and real-life applications of their research. We investigated how health researchers with expertise in knowledge translation report research translation activities and impact on their curriculum vitae (CV). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of health researchers with expertise in knowledge translation as we anticipated best practices in CV reporting from this specialized group. Our survey asked participants about their reporting of research translation and impact activities on their CVs, intention to report, and barriers and facilitators to reporting such activities on their CVs. We calculated univariate descriptive statistics for all quantitative data. Linear regression models determined predictors of researchers' intention to report research translation and impact activities on their CVs. We analyzed open-ended qualitative responses using content analysis. Results: One hundred and fifty-three health researchers responded to the survey (response rate = 29%). Most respondents were Canadian, were female, and had a doctoral degree. Eighty-two percent indicated they reported at least one research translation and/or impact indicator on their CVs. Of those, health researchers commonly reported the following: advisory/regulatory committee membership related to research program (83%), research translation award(s) (61%), and academic performance assessments (59%). Researchers least commonly indicated the following: citation metric scores (31%), summaries of impact (21%), and requests to use research materials and/ or products (19%). Fewer than half of the health researchers intended to report knowledge translation (43%) and impact (33%) on their CVs. Strong beliefs about capabilities and consequences of reporting research translation and/or impact were significant predictors of intention. Main barriers were as follows: CV templates do not include research translation and impact activities, participants perceived employers do not value research translation and impact activities, and lack of metrics to evaluate research translation and impact. Ninety-six percent were unaware of a CV template formatted to include research translation and/or impact reporting. Conclusions: Knowledge translation and impact indicators on the CV are inconsistently reported by our sample of health researchers. Modifiable barriers should be addressed to support more consistent reporting of such activities, including providing a CV template that includes research translation and impact as well as clear metrics to quantify them.
“…Such requirements at institutional levels can strongly influence the culture and practice of reporting. While such measures and tools are emerging 2 , empirical evaluation of their validity and reliably is still lacking [28]. Various organizations internationally have proposed mechanisms and indicators for assessment of research impact.…”
Background: Increasingly, health researchers must demonstrate the impact and real-life applications of their research. We investigated how health researchers with expertise in knowledge translation report research translation activities and impact on their curriculum vitae (CV). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of health researchers with expertise in knowledge translation as we anticipated best practices in CV reporting from this specialized group. Our survey asked participants about their reporting of research translation and impact activities on their CVs, intention to report, and barriers and facilitators to reporting such activities on their CVs. We calculated univariate descriptive statistics for all quantitative data. Linear regression models determined predictors of researchers' intention to report research translation and impact activities on their CVs. We analyzed open-ended qualitative responses using content analysis. Results: One hundred and fifty-three health researchers responded to the survey (response rate = 29%). Most respondents were Canadian, were female, and had a doctoral degree. Eighty-two percent indicated they reported at least one research translation and/or impact indicator on their CVs. Of those, health researchers commonly reported the following: advisory/regulatory committee membership related to research program (83%), research translation award(s) (61%), and academic performance assessments (59%). Researchers least commonly indicated the following: citation metric scores (31%), summaries of impact (21%), and requests to use research materials and/ or products (19%). Fewer than half of the health researchers intended to report knowledge translation (43%) and impact (33%) on their CVs. Strong beliefs about capabilities and consequences of reporting research translation and/or impact were significant predictors of intention. Main barriers were as follows: CV templates do not include research translation and impact activities, participants perceived employers do not value research translation and impact activities, and lack of metrics to evaluate research translation and impact. Ninety-six percent were unaware of a CV template formatted to include research translation and/or impact reporting. Conclusions: Knowledge translation and impact indicators on the CV are inconsistently reported by our sample of health researchers. Modifiable barriers should be addressed to support more consistent reporting of such activities, including providing a CV template that includes research translation and impact as well as clear metrics to quantify them.
“…Usable research outputs make an impact by informing potential beneficiaries, increasing their awareness and knowledge of the solution options available or potential improvements (Given, Kelly, & Willson, ; McNie, Parris, & Sarewitz, ). REF acknowledges such informational impact, such as research leading to debates: [T]here may be impact arising from research which take forms such as holding public or private bodies to account or subjecting proposed changes in society, public policy, business practices, and so on to public scrutiny.…”
Section: How To Demonstrate Impact? the 3u Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Usable research outputs make an impact by informing potential beneficiaries, increasing their awareness and knowledge of the solution options available or potential improvements (Given, Kelly, & Willson, 2015;McNie, Parris, & Sarewitz, 2016). REF acknowledges such informational impact, such as research leading to debates:…”
In addition to innate curiosity, many of us also see scientific research as a way of making the world a better place. There has been a drive to better understand and observe the practical and societal impact of research, led by researchers seeking to find meaning and purpose in their work, as well as government agencies responsible for allocating research funding to maximum effect. Despite a wealth of guidance from researchers discussing impact and agencies evaluating impact, making practice impact visible and demonstrable remains arduous to researchers because it appears to be possible only at the end of a long and winding pathway to impact. This article presents a framework for demonstrating practice impact as it is being realized progressively, rather than only at the end of the pathway. It identifies usable, in‐use, and useful research outputs, with each having cumulative and demonstrable practice impact. Our analyses of existing impact evaluation guidelines and top‐ranked impact cases submitted to the Research Excellence Framework 2014 showed that all three forms of impact can be demonstrated and are recognized as practice impact. Framing impact in terms of “use” inherently connects the perspectives of researchers and beneficiary users and positions users as co‐producers of impact rather than passive objects and recipients of research. The 3U framework is descriptive as well as prescriptive. It identifies impact indicators for each form of impact. It also indicates the necessary actions for strengthening impact. When applied iteratively, the 3U framework facilitates the identification and pursuit of new research questions that will further solidify a research endeavour's practice impact.
“…Whether or not researchers and institutions support the necessity for this kind of national assessment framework there is a clear movement towards the measurement of the engagement and impact of research (Bornmann, Haunschild & Marx, 2016;Bornmann & Marx, 2014;Chowdhury, Koya & Philipson, 2016). Therefore, it becomes essential for universities to not only understand what is meant by engagement and impact, but how to effectively support, promote and fulfil their responsibilities in relation to it (Chowdhury, Koya & Philipson, 2016;Given, Kelly & Willson, 2015).…”
In 2018 Australia will include, for the first time, an engagement and impact assessment exercise as a companion to the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) national framework. This paper sought to research the core competencies that are crucial to supporting roles within this emerging field. The study conducted a content analysis of position descriptions and job advertisements from the UK and Australia and mapped this to current industry skill audits for library and information science (LIS) professionals. The comparison to the UK created a representation of future requirements of engagement and impact (EI) support roles in Australia. The paper also considers the role of LIS professionals and what competencies they will need to acquire or develop if they are to contribute to institutions and researchers meeting the requirements of an EI assessment exercise. The skills required by both UK and Australian EI support roles are aligned to those endorsed and promoted by the LIS industry. The study supports the viability of using current academic library networks and LIS professionals to meet the demands of an engagement and impact assessment thereby reducing the cost and creating a more efficient implementation of such an exercise. Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation Hard Skill Australia* % of sources** Hard Skill UK* % of sources** Total sources**: 9 100 Total sources**: Relationship management 9 100 Industry knowledge 26 Education (qualifications) 7 78 Relationship management 24 Project management 7 78 Education (qualifications) 21 Industry knowledge 6 67 Project management 18 Report writing 5 56 Software, IT and web knowledge 17 Funding knowledge and support 4 44 Events management 15 Information and data management 4 44 Writing and grammar 15 Software, IT and web knowledge 4 44 Report writing 13 Analytical skills 3 33 Data and research output analysis 9 Research ability 3 33 Funding knowledge and support 9 Table 2 Click here to download Table Table 2 V2.xlsx
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
