1 / 9

GSOE Impact Workshop

GSOE Impact Workshop. Impact and the REF 19 th May 2010. Lesley Dinsdale. Key features of the REF. Hefce announcement on initial decisions 25 th March 2010: Essentially a similar overall exercise as the RAE: Peer review is fundamental

kris
Télécharger la présentation

GSOE Impact Workshop

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GSOE Impact Workshop Impact and the REF 19th May 2010 Lesley Dinsdale

  2. Key features of the REF • Hefce announcement on initial decisions 25th March 2010: • Essentially a similar overall exercise as the RAE: • Peer review is fundamental • Institutional selection of staff and best four outputs to continue • Institutional submission policies • Codes of Practice: selection criteria, allowances for individual circumstances • But assessment of esteem has been replaced by assessment of the impact of research

  3. REF Structure of submissions Impact Outputs Environment Element: Narrative, case study approach giving exemplars Supported by indicators ‘RA5 type’ narrative Supported by indicators: income, students Expert review, possibly informed by bibliometrics in some sub panels Assessed by: Individual, of staffsubmitted The UOA The UOA Profile against criteria: originality, significance, rigour Profile against criteria: reach and significance Profile. Criteria relating to outputs and impact Reported as: Weightings %? 60/70? 15/20? 10/20?

  4. Assessment of Impact: Proposals • Assessed at the unit level, not individual • Definition of impact for REF is wide but does not include academic impact • Majority of assessment by case studies (1 per 10 FTE?) • Supported by overarching impact statement

  5. Assessment of Impact: Proposals • Criteria: • Impact ‘occurred’ during survey period (Jan 2008 – survey date) • Must relate to underpinning research (from date?) of a ‘sufficient standard of rigour and originality’ • Research may be a specific piece or a ‘body of work’ • Contribution by the institution to both the underpinning research and impact • Impacts must be evidenced, including ‘indicators’ where appropriate: potentially auditable • Assessment criteria: reach and significance (‘breadth’ and ‘depth’)

  6. Impact: Hefce pilot • To test Hefce proposals for methodology – submissions and assessment criteria • 29 universities, 5 UOAs including Social Policy and Social Work (UOA40) • ‘Mock’ impact submissions – case studies and impact statement, March 2010 • Pilot assessment panels – 50/50 academic/users of research. Govt Chief Social Scientist Chair of UOA40 • Panels to provide detailed report in Autumn 2010

  7. Impact: UOB pilot experience and issues • High (but not universal) buy-in from academic participants • Submissions led by UOA Academic Coordinators with a small team – their detailed local knowledge and energy/enthusiasm was vital • Identification of case studies (12 submitted in total) was local – no systematic corporate sources

  8. Impact: UOB pilot experience and issues • Evidencing impact: • Can we demonstrate that peoples’ lives have been changed in some way? • Some of the Hefce proposed indicators of impact are activities rather than impacts... • ...new concept of ‘intermediate impact’ • Hefce do not intend to make this an impossible exercise!

  9. Impact: UOB pilot experience and issues • Many highly subject-specific issues : • Particularly in the social sciences, there is not a linear progression from research to impact • Govt commissioned work sometimes not published in a peer reviewed form? • What about high-quality research findings that are rejected by policy makers for political reasons? • What about ‘negative’ research findings?

More Related