IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v24y2015i3p229-241..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Societal impact evaluation: Exploring evaluator perceptions of the characterization of impact under the REF2014

Author

Listed:
  • Gabrielle N. Samuel
  • Gemma E. Derrick

Abstract

The relative newness of ‘impact’ as a criterion for research assessment has meant that there is yet to be an empirical study examining the process of its evaluation. This article is part of a broader study which is exploring the panel-based peer and end-user review process for societal impact evaluation using the UK’s national research assessment exercise, the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014, as a case study. In particular, this article explores the different perceptions REF2014 evaluators had regarding societal impact, preceding their evaluation of this measure as part of REF2014. Data are drawn from 62 interviews with evaluators from the health-related Panel A and its subpanels, prior to the REF2014 exercise taking place. We show how going into the REF exercise, evaluators from Panel A had different perceptions about how to characterize impact and how to define impact realization in terms of research outcomes and the research process. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for future impact evaluation frameworks, as well as postulating a series of hypotheses about the ways in which evaluators’ different perceptions going into an impact assessment could potentially influence the evaluation of impact submissions. Using REF2014 as a case study, these hypotheses will be tested in interviews with REF2014 evaluators post-assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabrielle N. Samuel & Gemma E. Derrick, 2015. "Societal impact evaluation: Exploring evaluator perceptions of the characterization of impact under the REF2014," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 229-241.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:24:y:2015:i:3:p:229-241.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvv007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ben Martin, 2016. "What is Happening to our Universities?," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-03, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    2. J. Britt Holbrook, 2017. "The future of the impact agenda depends on the revaluation of academic freedom," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-9, December.
    3. Alessandro Margherita & Gianluca Elia & Claudio Petti, 2022. "What Is Quality in Research? Building a Framework of Design, Process and Impact Attributes and Evaluation Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Reed, M.S. & Ferré, M. & Martin-Ortega, J. & Blanche, R. & Lawford-Rolfe, R. & Dallimer, M. & Holden, J., 2021. "Evaluating impact from research: A methodological framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    5. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin & Adams, Jonathan, 2019. "Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 325-340.
    6. A. Gaunand & L. Colinet & P.-B. Joly & M. Matt, 2022. "Counting what really counts? Assessing the political impact of science," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 699-721, June.
    7. Groen-Xu, Moqi & Bös, Gregor & Teixeira, Pedro A. & Voigt, Thomas & Knapp, Bernhard, 2023. "Short-term incentives of research evaluations: Evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    8. Jorrit P Smit & Laurens K Hessels, 2021. "The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods [Systems Thinking, Knowledge and Action: Towards Better Models and Methods]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 323-335.
    9. Janire Fonseca Peso & Antonia Caro González & Nemanja Milosevic, 2020. "Innovative Co-Creative Participatory Methodologies for a Dreamt-of Quality Education in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-14, August.
    10. Salter, Ammon & Salandra, Rossella & Walker, James, 2017. "Exploring preferences for impact versus publications among UK business and management academics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1769-1782.
    11. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Werner Marx, 2016. "Policy documents as sources for measuring societal impact: how often is climate change research mentioned in policy-related documents?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1477-1495, December.
    12. Lai Ma & Rachael Agnew, 2022. "Deconstructing impact: A framework for impact evaluation in grant applications [Evidencing Impact from Art Research: Analysis of Impact Case Studies from the REF 2014]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 289-301.
    13. Shahzad, Murtuza & Alhoori, Hamed & Freedman, Reva & Rahman, Shaikh Abdul, 2022. "Quantifying the online long-term interest in research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    14. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Filippo Chiarello & Gualtiero Fantoni, 2021. "Impact for whom? Mapping the users of public research with lexicon-based text mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1745-1774, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:rseval:v:24:y:2015:i:3:p:229-241.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.