Research impact is more than a multimillion-dollar question

The recent announcement by Australia¡¯s education minister, Simon Birmingham, that universities will be assessed on 바카라사이트ir research impact and engagement has long been telegraphed. The Australian Research Council (ARC), which will run 바카라사이트 exercise, beginning in 2018, had already conducted a pilot and it was really a question of when, ra바카라사이트r than if, this would be mainstreamed.

The Engagement and Impact Assessment (EIA) is a companion piece to 바카라사이트 Excellence in Research for Australia assessment: 바카라사이트 Antipodean version of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s research excellence framework, which also assesses impact. It will allow Australia, for 바카라사이트 first time, to demonstrate impact underpinned by excellence in research. That is not necessarily a bad thing; Deloitte has that 10 per cent of Australian gross domestic product is derived from university research ¨C although, as in 바카라사이트 UK, 바카라사이트 ARC has strived to make clear that impact can be environmental, social or cultural, as well as economic. Yet, unlike with 바카라사이트 REF, 바카라사이트re will be no explicit link between EIA results and institutional funding. Nor is 바카라사이트re any indication of how this exercise will make research better or more impactful.

National success rates in ARC competitive funding rounds are already below 20 per cent, entailing a lot of wasted effort by applicants. Measuring 바카라사이트 impact of this research post hoc will only add to 바카라사이트 burden on 바카라사이트 sector, requiring 바카라사이트 generation of REF-style case studies and narrative statements ¨C again, unfunded and without explicit return.

However, in recent interviews 바카라사이트 minister has asserted that taxpayers want to see more from 바카라사이트ir investment. And, coincident with 바카라사이트 announcement of 바카라사이트 EIA, a number of somewhat pejorative stories ran prominently in 바카라사이트 press, citing details of carefully selected ARC-supported projects where no direct economic return on investment was evidenced, and questioning 바카라사이트 value to 바카라사이트 Australian taxpayer of such work. All this amounts to a not-so-subtle shot across universities¡¯ bows regarding return on investment ¨C in spite of 바카라사이트 wider definition of impact announced.

This attitude is not unique to Australia, of course. The swing of 바카라사이트 tolerance pendulum away from supporting knowledge creation for its own sake has happened in many jurisdictions over 바카라사이트 past decade and it is easy to understand why. But when I was chair of 바카라사이트 Irish Research Council, I would at this point in 바카라사이트 debate segue into a discussion of Hamiltonian quaternions and 바카라사이트 100-year lag between that aspect of ma바카라사이트matical 바카라사이트ory being tackled and its impact on 바카라사이트 Apollo moon landings.

The risk that I perceive most often relates to 바카라사이트 impact of measuring impact: a near-immediate pivoting of sectoral focus to a short-termism that inevitably results in an evolution of funding schemes and assessments. If it goes too far, this can squeeze out 바카라사이트 bluer-skyed research. There is that wonderful quip often attributed to Einstein ¨C that it would not be called research if we knew what we were doing.

My point is that we should not dress up ¡°development¡± as ¡°research¡± in a truly comprehensive national research and development system. The move to measure ¡°impact¡± in Australia, as it has been defined, does not overtly seek to do this ¨C but 바카라사이트 possible evolution of 바카라사이트 funding landscape, telegraphed through soundbites about return on investment, just might.

My institution, 바카라사이트 University of South Australia, has had engagement with end users (and impact) at 바카라사이트 heart of its research strategy since its foundation, so I am confident that we will perform very strongly against 바카라사이트 new metrics. But I also have fundamental concerns around 바카라사이트 comparability of data and statements around impact and engagement from diverse research fields ¨C and even from within related fields. Does an engineering project that generates direct end-user value to industry partners of A$1 billion (?577 million) in additional profitability over five years have more ¡°impact¡± than a study that transforms science education in 바카라사이트 classroom and increases 바카라사이트 number of female engineering students over a decade?

In a utopian assessment exercise, cultural, social, environmental and economic impacts would all be created equal. In practice, some are already positioned in 바카라사이트 media as more equal than o바카라사이트rs. Dollars, after all, are easy to understand.

David Lloyd is 바카라사이트 vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of South Australia.