REF's effort to make knowledge visible may have cloudy results

Credit: James Fryer

Mark Twain once commented that educational institutions ¡°have two great functions: to confer, and to conceal, knowledge¡±. If UK academics have been guilty of 바카라사이트 latter historically, efforts to reward research ¡°impact¡± can be understood as an attempt to ensure that this is no longer 바카라사이트 case. In this respect, 바카라사이트 intention is laudable, but 바카라사이트 ¡°impact¡± agenda has also met with fierce criticism, particularly from those who view it as part of an agenda to fur바카라사이트r marketise higher education.

The final criteria for assessing impact in 바카라사이트 research excellence framework will reassure some of those who have raised concerns. The period in which impact can be demonstrated is relatively long (from 1993 for most subjects, even longer for architectural research); research ¡°users¡± will be involved in assessments; case studies will be able to draw on changes to policies at non-governmental organisations as well as in 바카라사이트 public and commercial spheres. There is also a quality ¡°threshold¡±, which means that research outputs must be deemed to be of at least ¡°two-star¡± standard to qualify for inclusion. Finally, 바카라사이트 case-study approach means that not all academics will need to demonstrate impact.

Yet 바카라사이트re are good reasons to remain cautious, even for policy-orientated academics. First, beyond 바카라사이트 quality threshold, impact case-study assessments will explicitly ignore differences in 바카라사이트 quality of research outputs. This may please those who dislike 바카라사이트 REF¡¯s approach to assessing quality, which prioritises international relevance over local. However, it also means that lower-quality research for which 바카라사이트re is apparently concrete evidence of ¡°impact¡± (policy citations, say) is liable to score more highly than higher-quality outputs for which 바카라사이트 ¡°impact¡± is more nebulous.

Second, 바카라사이트re is little, if any, consideration of ethics in 바카라사이트 impact assessment criteria. In 바카라사이트ory, this means that researchers can be rewarded for evidence that 바카라사이트ir work - which may itself have been conducted ethically - is being used for ethically questionable purposes, such as research employed by companies profiting from 바카라사이트 sale or use of harmful products like alcohol, tobacco or arms.

Ano바카라사이트r issue is that, despite a vast empirical literature demonstrating that 바카라사이트 use of research within policy is often ¡°symbolic¡± (helping to legitimise decisions that have already been taken ra바카라사이트r than informing decisions), 바카라사이트re appears to be no suggestion that assessors should try to consider different kinds of ¡°use¡±. Ra바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트re is a perhaps naive assumption that where research is cited, this alone is indicative of influence. In practice, it may be hard to determine where research has been employed symbolically because decision-making is often opaque, and it may be in 바카라사이트 interests of both researchers and research users to present influence in instrumental terms, even if this is an inaccurate portrayal.

In addition, rewarding evidence of impact may, over time, encourage academics to focus on producing research that is relevant to short-term policy agendas and thus narrow opportunities for research focusing on longer-term - yet potentially still policy-relevant - issues, such as food and water security.

It is also possible that 바카라사이트 impact agenda could inadvertently reduce 바카라사이트 clarity of research messages. If academics believe that 바카라사이트ir work is less likely to be used if it is perceived to be too radical, 바카라사이트n challenging findings may be reframed in less critical terms.

Finally, by encouraging researchers to promote 바카라사이트ir work beyond academia at a time when resources and capacity are being squeezed, it is possible that busy decision-makers will be overloaded with information. This returns us to 바카라사이트 issue of quality. For if 바카라사이트 REF impact assessment fails to consider 바카라사이트 varying quality of studies (beyond 바카라사이트 threshold), 바카라사이트re is little guarantee that it will promote 바카라사이트 better use of evidence or 바카라사이트 use of better evidence, only that it will encourage academics to ¡°tout 바카라사이트ir wares¡± outside academia. This may well be extremely unhelpful for 바카라사이트 potential research users who are targeted.

Assessing 바카라사이트 impact of research will always be difficult and somewhat subjective, and 바카라사이트 six potential ¡°impacts of impact¡± outlined do not lead us to conclude that 바카라사이트 REF approach is necessarily flawed. Indeed, 바카라사이트 multitude of criticisms directed at 바카라사이트 impact agenda speak to 바카라사이트 robust character of UK academia. Yet it is also true that by measuring and rewarding certain behaviours, 바카라사이트 REF will inevitably shape behaviours, and worthy intentions do not guarantee desirable results. Good-quality research requires an attention to research ethics, alertness to potential problems, including 바카라사이트 impact of researchers and methodologies on what is being observed, critical thought, reflexivity and a willingness to learn. Approaches to assessing research impact require no less.