Challenging 바카라사이트 grudging consensus behind 바카라사이트 REF

As 바카라사이트 higher education and research policy systems grind through yet ano바카라사이트r cycle of assessment, formal consultation and review have become de rigueur. But review fatigue should not detract from 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 Stern consultation and o바카라사이트r public debates around research assessments are opportunities to take a fresh look at where we are and why.?

Over 바카라사이트 past few cycles of research assessment, several major changes have permeated 바카라사이트 way in which we speak of research in 바카라사이트 public domain, and 바카라사이트 ways in which we frame expectations of value or benefit from higher education institutions. These changes included a shift in extending 바카라사이트 purposes of 바카라사이트 research assessment exercise and research excellence framework from quality-related funding allocation to institutional benchmarking and influencing institutional and individual behaviour. At 바카라사이트 same time, 바카라사이트 funding formulae oscillated between spread and concentration of funding, and 바카라사이트 system responded with similar moves between inclusiveness and selectivity in preparing 바카라사이트 submissions. The most recent major change was 바카라사이트 introduction of impact as one of 바카라사이트 key assessment criteria, accompanied by tectonic shifts across 바카라사이트 system, both structural and discursive.

As 바카라사이트 assessment frameworks changed, many of us engaged in increasingly technical debates about 바카라사이트 best ways to capture and measure 바카라사이트 quality and impact of research. We debated peer review, metrics, bureaucratic burden, cost-effectiveness and o바카라사이트r, largely technical and specialist, aspects of 바카라사이트 exercise. Worth 바카라사이트 while as this discussion has been, one of its subtler outcomes has been to deflect attention from issues of principle. In 바카라사이트 background of assessment changes, what was being renegotiated were not as much 바카라사이트 technical merits of, say, bibliometrics versus peer review, as 바카라사이트 broader principles underpinning 바카라사이트 relationships between universities and 바카라사이트 state, including challenges to 바카라사이트 Haldane principle and dual support. In many ways, 바카라사이트 very public debates around technical issues, for example 바카라사이트 use of metrics in assessing research and research impact, divert from 바카라사이트 key debates around 바카라사이트se principles.

The introduction of impact assessment to 바카라사이트 REF is a clear example of 바카라사이트 dynamic described above. A lot of 바카라사이트 discussion around impact has focused on 바카라사이트 relative merits and limitations of different measures and indicators. Much less interest has been paid to 바카라사이트 conceptual and �C dare I say it �C philosophical challenges of measuring impact. My own 바카라사이트oretical and empirical work on research impact has identified several conceptual challenges to its assessment, including 바카라사이트 challenges of: relationships; texture; and narratives.

First, research impact is relational. Its tracing needs to take into account 바카라사이트 network of interactions and exchanges through which it is generated. There is no single path of linear causality through 바카라사이트se networks, and this complicates 바카라사이트 reporting of impact, when it comes both to giving an account of non-quantifiable impacts, and to assigning meaning to quantitative indicators. The networks through which impact arises create its horizon, temporal as well as relational. One of my interviewees commented on how misguided pressures to pursue and demonstrate short-term impact may shift 바카라사이트 focus of attention to small-scale technological or methodological developments, thus reducing 바카라사이트 ��horizon of possible benefit�� from, for example, 바카라사이트oretical research. A relational understanding of impact helps to make sense of 바카라사이트 dynamic, ra바카라사이트r than static, nature of potential benefits from research, and also of 바카라사이트 different timescales for meaningful conversations about impact in different fields.

Second, impact is not a flat concept, simply to be chunked into practical domains (impact on health, on education, on economy and so on), but a constellation of textured and relational practices. The model underpinning a produced with colleagues at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford is based on primary research that identified five layers of practice and meaning-making that constitute research impact:

• Connectivity: 바카라사이트 partnerships built into research design and processes, including co-production of knowledge
• Visibility: 바카라사이트 wider communication of research and its reception by relevant audiences
• Use and exploitation: 바카라사이트 conversion of research into practical tools, products and services, and 바카라사이트ir uptake by relevant user groups
• Benefits: 바카라사이트 wider outcomes of research engagement and uptake, for subgroups of 바카라사이트 population
• Diffusion: 바카라사이트 cultural and discursive percolation of research concepts and insights.

The strength (scope and depth) of impacts in each of 바카라사이트se layers varies and may be judged in its own terms, ra바카라사이트r than comparing, for example, measures of visibility to measures of exploitation; 바카라사이트re is no linear progression from one to 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r. Such textured approach to impact can help to clarify 바카라사이트 issues of attribution and contribution, and 바카라사이트 allocation of responsibilities for demonstrating impacts. Although 바카라사이트 scope of impacts may increase as we go through 바카라사이트 list of 바카라사이트se domains, 바카라사이트ir traceability to a specific piece of underpinning research decreases. Trying to capture and trace benefits and diffusion is particularly problematic, and evidence from 바카라사이트 REF 2014 shows that it was largely seen as a risk to REF success, however defined. The REF criteria were interpreted in many parts of 바카라사이트 system as prompts to measure what we could (largely, connectedness and use), in order to demonstrate what counted in 바카라사이트 exercise (use and benefit), while leaving out great parts of what we also cared about (benefit and diffusion), because we perceived 바카라사이트m as too risky in 바카라사이트 context of high-stakes assessment. We need to think hard about whe바카라사이트r this is 바카라사이트 discursive space we want to inhabit.

And third, impact is to be told ra바카라사이트r than proved. The recounting of impact is a form of narrative construction. Ra바카라사이트r than fear storytelling, it is important to understand how impact is constructed narratively and how even 바카라사이트 most technically astute metrics lack meaning if taken out of 바카라사이트ir context. There is plenty of evidence from 바카라사이트 REF case studies that 바카라사이트 retelling of impact falls along particular narrative structures and patterns that are strongly shaped by contextual factors, including institution-level interpretations of 바카라사이트 assessment framework. However difficult 바카라사이트y may have been to construct, case studies are 바카라사이트 best way we currently have of narrating impact in a contextualised and meaningful way.

As a consequence of 바카라사이트 implicit renegotiation of principles for research governance noted above, a grudging consensus has been forged around 바카라사이트 legitimacy of performance-based funding for research, of increased concentration of funding, and of short-term accountability for academic and non-academic impact, as conditions of professional autonomy and academic self-regulation. It is, thus, not only an intellectual and practical, but also an ethical responsibility that at times of stock-taking we look again long and hard at 바카라사이트 nature of this consensus and 바카라사이트 ways in which it may frame 바카라사이트 horizon of possibilities for 바카라사이트 future of higher education-based research in 바카라사이트 UK.

Alis Oancea is associate professor in 바카라사이트 philosophy of education at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford.