Impact Strategy for the Next Spending Review

Department of Research & Innovation welcome the Research Councils UK to Swansea University to present a seminar and receive questions on their

‘Impact Strategy for the Next Spending Review’

  When: Wednesday 16th March 12.00pm to 1.00pm

Where: SURF Room – 1^st floor Fulton House

Speaker Profiles: Dr Claire Graves is head of Knowledge Transfer and Economic Impact for the RCUK

She was awarded her PHD in Geography at Leicester University, after which Claire researched harbour management and geophysics at Nottingham. Claire moved across to the EPSRC in 2000 where she was the portfolio manager for the transport and automotive sector before moving onto Public Affairs. She was seconded to the RCUK in 2007 where she is now responsible for delivering the cross council impact agenda.

Who will benefit from attending? Anyone interested in Impact from their research

By the end of the seminar, attendees will know more about?  The new funding landscape of RCUK, their Strategic Vision and the Pathways to Impact

Next Steps: places are limited, to enrol please reply to researchandinnovation@swansea.ac.uk

Future Seminars:  31^st March between 10am to 12 noon – Arts and Humanities Research Council (DRI seminar room, 7^th floor Faraday)

REF IMPACT Reduced to 20%

The THE  have just reported that the percentage of  points given to research impact in the REF will be reduced from 25% to 20%.

Read the full story on the THE website or visit the HEFCE website for the report Decisions on assessing research impact

Bibliometrics and peer review – the Italian view

A very interesting new article has just been published by researchers in Italy, who have analysed data from the first Italian national research evaluation to see whether there is a correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer review.

The questions they posed were:

1. Are peer review judgements and (article and journal) bibliometric indicators independent variables?
2. What is the strength of the association?
3. Is the association between peer judgement and article citation rating significantly stronger than the association between peer judgement and journal citation rating?

They found “a compelling body of evidence that judgements given by domain experts and bibliometric indicators are significantly positively correlated” and in their conclusions, they suggest:

Bibliometrics are not independent of peer review assessment. The correlation between peer assessment and bibliometric indicators is significant but not perfect. Peer review should be integrated with bibliometric indicators in national assessment exercises.

Franceschet, M & Constantini, A (2010) “The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective“, Journal of Informetrics, in press, corrected proof Science Direct [Online].



Development of bibliometric indicators for the REF – HEFCE

HEFCE have published  “Analysis of data from the pilot exercise to develop bibliometric indicators for the REF – The effect of using normalised citation scores for particular staff characteristics”

The report analyses the data from the pilot exercise to develop bibliometric indicators for the REF. It analyses the effect of using bibliometrics  (citation scores) in the REF upon  certain types of research staff. For example, early career researchers will be less likely to have many citations. It also looks at age and sex, gender, ethnicity, disability of researchers as well as those who are part-time staff.

The report recommends:

 If citation data are used then the four UK higher education funding bodies will need to ensure that institutions planning to make submissions to the REF are aware of the results of this analysis so that they can take them into account when selecting staff for inclusion. Further, panels will also need to account for the differences found and will require guidance as part of their equality briefing.

Making an impact: using Journal Citation Reports and other tools to measure the impact of your research

This session for academic staff and researchers will look at the ways you can monitor the impact your publications are having, especially when considering the REF. We will also look at Researcher ID as a way of raising your own profile, Journal Citation Reports, and Web of Science facilities such as cited reference searching, citation mapping, times cited, citation alerts and amending your author name if necessary.

The session will be held in the Library & Information Centre (Room – PC3) on 15th February 2011 from 12.30pm to 1.30pm.

To book a place, please contact i.glen@swan.ac.uk

REF Research Impact Pilot Study Results & Case Studies

The full reports from the Impact Pilot Study are available online from HEFCE.  As well as the report, there are example case studies from Clinical Medicine, Earth Systems & Environmental Sciences, Physics, Social Work & Social Policy and English Language & Literature.

RCUK respond to REF pilot report

In a brief press release on their website, RCUK “welcomes the findings of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) pilot scheme that demonstrates it is possible to assess the economic and societal benefits arising from research and how this can be achieved across all disciplines.

Professor Dave Delpy, RCUK Impact Champion said: “RCUK is committed to supporting excellent research that ensures social wellbeing and economic prosperity and ultimately places the UK in a position of leadership on the world stage of research and innovation. We support the wide definition of impact, as set out in this report, which includes social, economic, cultural, environmental, health and quality of life benefits. This reflects the approach already adopted by RCUK through Pathways to Impact.”

RCUK has worked closely with the Funding Councils to ensure that proposals for the REF will be effective in pursuing shared objectives and will continue to support the REF by working with HEFCE to contribute expertise in developing impact assessment methodologies.”

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/news/101110

Blue skies? Willets, the REF, Research Impact and Research Funding

Today, 9th July, the universities and science minister, David Willetts, in a speech to the Royal Institution, confirmed  that the REF is to be postponed for a year.  The problem with measuring economic impact of research would appear to be the primary reason. He has stressed the need to find a reliable measure of impact that would find consensus within the academic community. However, he also expressed the view that the significance of scientific research could not always be measured by its short-term economic impact, as with the unexpected benefits of blue skies research. “”The surprising paths which serendipity takes us down is a major reason why we need to think harder about impact.” Over the next year, the lessons of the pilot exercise and the experiences of other countries (e.g. Star Metrics in the USA) will be drawn upon.

Willetts rejected the previous government’s thinking on funding of scientific research and innovation.

You’re supposed to put money into university-based scientific research, which leads to patents and then spinout companies that secure venture capital backing. The mature business provides tax revenues for the Government, jobs for the local area, a nice profit for the university.

Yet, he said, on average only 3% of university income ever came from commercialisation of  intellectual property.

There were better ways of “harvesting the benefits from research”. Amongst these he said he favoured “clusters”, which he defined as “low-risk environment for high-risk activity”, citing the example of computer games and media companies based around Abertay University.

Government backing for research does make economic sense, he said, and the Research Councils’ funding of scientific research was effective in “generating wider benefits across the economy as a whole”. There may be cuts ahead, but essentially the dual funding system was working and he supported the Haldane principle.

In terms of his own thinking on policy for supporting and developing the research base, he believes that:

1. Publicly funded research facilities ( Government support for “shared facilities – research platforms if you like – which private companies could not develop on their own”)
2. Public procurement contracts given to innovative SMEs (“A purchasing contract can be as effective a way to get money to an innovative small business as a grant or a capital investment: this is particularly important at times when banks are so reluctant to lend.”
3. Public competitions for new technologies (“And it need not be Government which sets the prize or the challenge – it can happen in marketplaces on the web too.”)

You can read the speech in full on the BIS website or read reports from THE & The Engineer.

REF postponed

THE report that David Willetts will announce on 9th July that the Research Excellence Framework will be postponed for a year. The reason for postponement seems to be due to doubts about the effectiveness of measuring social, economic and cultural impact of research. He is reported to have said the need is for a measure of impact that is “methodoligically sound and that commands the assent of the academic community”. You can read the full article at the THE website.

Shadow Minister for Science & Innovation on REF & Impact

In a recent Q&A on eGov monitor , the Shadow Minister For Science And Innovation, Adam Afriyie, said that he understood why researchers felt frustrated. He said that he wants to “work towards a clearer definition of the Haldane Principle” in order to preserve the independence of researchers and “blue skies research”.

As to the REF, he said that his party, if elected, would “would postpone the Research Excellence Framework to ensure we are defining, measuring and applying impact correctly”.

You can read the full Q&A at http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/33680