IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/eurjdr/v35y2023i2d10.1057_s41287-023-00579-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Laying the Foundations for Impact: Lessons from the GCRF Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Isabel Vogel

    (Isabel Vogel Ltd)

  • Chris Barnett

    (Itad Ltd)

Abstract

Research for development (R4D) aims to make a tangible difference to development challenges, but these effects typically take years to emerge. Evaluation (especially impact evaluation) often takes place before there is evidence of development impact. In this paper, we focus on opportunities for assessing the potential for impact at earlier stages in the research and innovation process. We argue that such a focus can help research programme managers and evaluators learn about the pre-conditions for impact and adjust accordingly. Using the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) as a large-scale case of R4D evaluation, we identify and explore some of the building blocks that can increase impact potential. Guided by GCRF’s theory of change, we explore emerging evidence that highlights the importance of ways of working that supports positioning for impact. We conclude by drawing out a unifying construct around standards of development excellence; to sit alongside notions of scientific excellence for research intended to have an impact. Standards can help programme managers, researchers and evaluators learn and adapt to increase the likelihood of impact.

Suggested Citation

  • Isabel Vogel & Chris Barnett, 2023. "Laying the Foundations for Impact: Lessons from the GCRF Evaluation," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 281-297, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:eurjdr:v:35:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1057_s41287-023-00579-9
    DOI: 10.1057/s41287-023-00579-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41287-023-00579-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41287-023-00579-9?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. Annette Boaz & Siobhan Fitzpatrick & Ben Shaw, 2009. "Assessing the impact of research on policy: A literature review," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(4), pages 255-270, May.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ferreira, Paula & Rocha, Ana & Araujo, Madalena & Afonso, Joao L. & Antunes, Carlos Henggeler & Lopes, Marta A.R. & Osório, Gerardo J. & Catalão, João P.S. & Lopes, João Peças, 2023. "Assessing the societal impact of smart grids: Outcomes of a collaborative research project," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    2. Bryce, Cormac & Dowling, Michael & Lucey, Brian, 2020. "The journal quality perception gap," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    3. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    4. Sten F Odenwald, 2020. "A citation study of earth science projects in citizen science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, July.
    5. Alexander Kalgin & Olga Kalgina & Anna Lebedeva, 2019. "Publication Metrics as a Tool for Measuring Research Productivity and Their Relation to Motivation," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 1, pages 44-86.
    6. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    7. Lin Hu & Qinghai Chen & Tingting Yang & Chuanjian Yi & Jing Chen, 2024. "Visualization and Analysis of Hotspots and Trends in Seafood Cold Chain Logistics Based on CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and RStudio Bibliometrix," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-22, July.
    8. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    9. Marco Cozzi, 2020. "Public Funding of Research and Grant Proposals in the Social Sciences: Empirical Evidence from Canada," Department Discussion Papers 1809, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    10. Alexandre López-Borrull & Mari Vállez & Candela Ollé & Mario Pérez-Montoro, 2021. "Publisher Transparency among Communications and Library and Information Science Journals: Analysis and Recommendations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-12, November.
    11. Shahd Al-Janabi & Lee Wei Lim & Luca Aquili, 2021. "Development of a tool to accurately predict UK REF funding allocation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 8049-8062, September.
    12. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2023. "Correlating article citedness and journal impact: an empirical investigation by field on a large-scale dataset," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1877-1894, March.
    13. Wildgaard, Lorna, 2016. "A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1055-1078.
    14. Cristiano Varin & Manuela Cattelan & David Firth, 2016. "Statistical modelling of citation exchange between statistics journals," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(1), pages 1-63, January.
    15. Rosa Kuipers-Dirven & Matthijs Janssen & Jarno Hoekman, 2023. "Assessing university policies for enhancing societal impact of academic research: A multicriteria mapping approach," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 371-383.
    16. repec:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2024:i:2:p:273-285. is not listed on IDEAS
    17. 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.
    18. Erich Battistin & Marco Ovidi, 2022. "Rising Stars: Expert Reviews and Reputational Yardsticks in the Research Excellence Framework," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(356), pages 830-848, October.
    19. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 351-360, July.
    20. Ana Teresa Santos & Sandro Mendonça, 2022. "Do papers (really) match journals’ “aims and scope”? A computational assessment of innovation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7449-7470, December.
    21. Antonin Mac'e, 2017. "The Limits of Citation Counts," Papers 1711.02695, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.

    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:pal:eurjdr:v:35:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1057_s41287-023-00579-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    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.