IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v168y2016icp265-272.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Taking health geography out of the academy: Measuring academic impact

Author

Listed:
  • Shortt, Niamh K.
  • Pearce, Jamie
  • Mitchell, Richard
  • Smith, Katherine E.

Abstract

In recent years the academic landscape has been shifting and significantly affected by the introduction of an ‘impact agenda’. Academics are increasingly expected to demonstrate their broader engagement with the world and evidence related outcomes. Whilst different countries are at various stages along this impact journey, the UK is the first country to link impact to funding outcomes; here impact now accounts for 20% of an academic unit of assessment’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) result. This concept of ‘research impact’ implies that our work can effect change through one or more identifiable events in a direct, preferably linear and certainly measurable manner. In this paper, focusing on impact in social science, and policy-related impact in particular, we argue that such a cause and effect model is inappropriate. Furthermore that impact is not immediate or indeed linear within social science research. Drawing on recent work on alcohol and tobacco environments in Scotland we present a case study of impact, reflect on the process and respond to the challenges of moving beyond ‘business as usual’ public participation towards the measurement of outcomes. In doing so we critique the way in which ‘impact’ is currently measured and suggest a move towards an enlightenment model with greater recognition of process.

Suggested Citation

  • Shortt, Niamh K. & Pearce, Jamie & Mitchell, Richard & Smith, Katherine E., 2016. "Taking health geography out of the academy: Measuring academic impact," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 265-272.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:168:y:2016:i:c:p:265-272
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953616303380
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.048?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Simon & Ward, Vicky & House, Allan, 2011. "‘Impact’ in the proposals for the UK's Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1369-1379.
    2. Richard Van Noorden, 2015. "Interdisciplinary research by the numbers," Nature, Nature, vol. 525(7569), pages 306-307, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Florian Findler, 2021. "Toward a sustainability assessment framework of research impacts: Contributions of a business school," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 1190-1203, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zuo, Zhiya & Zhao, Kang, 2018. "The more multidisciplinary the better? – The prevalence and interdisciplinarity of research collaborations in multidisciplinary institutions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 736-756.
    2. Alessandro Pluchino & Giulio Burgio & Andrea Rapisarda & Alessio Emanuele Biondo & Alfredo Pulvirenti & Alfredo Ferro & Toni Giorgino, 2019. "Exploring the role of interdisciplinarity in physics: Success, talent and luck," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-15, June.
    3. Schlecht, Colleen & McGuier, Elizabeth A. & Ann Huang, Lee & Daro, Deborah, 2023. "Creating an interdisciplinary collaborative network of scholars in child maltreatment prevention: A network analysis of the Doris Duke Fellowships for the Promotion of Child Well-Being," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    4. Lina Xu & Steven Dellaportas & Zhiqiang Yang & Jin Wang, 2023. "More on the relationship between interdisciplinary accounting research and citation impact," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(4), pages 4779-4803, December.
    5. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    6. Froese, Anna & Woiwode, Hendrik & Suckow, Silvio, 2019. "Mission Impossible? Neue Wege zu Interdisziplinarität: Empfehlungen für Wissenschaft, Wissenschaftspolitik und Praxis," Discussion Papers, Research Group Science Policy Studies SP III 2019-601, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    7. Giliberto Capano & Benedetto Lepori, 2024. "Designing policies that could work: understanding the interaction between policy design spaces and organizational responses in public sector," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(1), pages 53-82, March.
    8. Lanu Kim & Jason H. Portenoy & Jevin D. West & Katherine W. Stovel, 2020. "Scientific journals still matter in the era of academic search engines and preprint archives," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(10), pages 1218-1226, October.
    9. Degl’Innocenti, Marta & Matousek, Roman & Tzeremes, Nickolaos G., 2019. "The interconnections of academic research and universities’ “third mission”: Evidence from the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    10. Kateryna Wowk & Larry McKinney & Frank Muller-Karger & Russell Moll & Susan Avery & Elva Escobar-Briones & David Yoskowitz & Richard McLaughlin, 2017. "Evolving academic culture to meet societal needs," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-7, December.
    11. Ohid Yaqub & Dmitry Malkov & Josh Siepel, 2023. "How unpredictable is research impact? Evidence from the UK’s Research Excellence Framework," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 273-285.
    12. Chen, Shiji & Qiu, Junping & Arsenault, Clément & Larivière, Vincent, 2021. "Exploring the interdisciplinarity patterns of highly cited papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    13. Martin Meyer & Kevin Grant & Piera Morlacchi & Dagmara Weckowska, 2014. "Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(1), pages 151-174, April.
    14. Shaojie Qi & Fengrui Hua & Zheng Zhou & Daniel T. L. Shek, 2022. "Trends of Positive Youth Development Publications (1995–2020): A Scientometric Review," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 17(1), pages 421-446, February.
    15. Zhang, Yang & Wang, Yang & Du, Haifeng & Havlin, Shlomo, 2024. "Delayed citation impact of interdisciplinary research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    16. V. Reilly Henson & Kelly M. Cobourn & Kathleen C. Weathers & Cayelan C. Carey & Kaitlin J. Farrell & Jennifer L. Klug & Michael G. Sorice & Nicole K. Ward & Weizhe Weng, 2020. "A Practical Guide for Managing Interdisciplinary Teams: Lessons Learned from Coupled Natural and Human Systems Research," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-19, July.
    17. Ying Liu & Feng Mai & Chris MacDonald, 2019. "A Big-Data Approach to Understanding the Thematic Landscape of the Field of Business Ethics, 1982–2016," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 127-150, November.
    18. Michael C. Calver & Maggie Lilith & Christopher R. Dickman, 2013. "A ‘perverse incentive’ from bibliometrics: could National Research Assessment Exercises (NRAEs) restrict literature availability for nature conservation?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 243-255, April.
    19. Richard McManus & Karen Mumford & Cristina Sechel, 2017. "The Selection of Economics Lecturers into the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework Exercise: Outputs and Gender," Discussion Papers 17/16, Department of Economics, University of York.
    20. Kazuki Nakajima & Kazuyuki Shudo & Naoki Masuda, 2023. "Higher-order rich-club phenomenon in collaborative research grant networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2429-2446, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:168:y:2016:i:c:p:265-272. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.