Where there is smoke, there is (the potential for) fire: soft indicators of research and policy impact

There is a growing literature examining the impact of research on informing policy, and of research and policy on practice. Research and policy do not have the same types of impact on practice but can be evaluated using similar approaches. Sometimes the literature provides a platform for methodological debate but mostly it is concerned with how research can link to improvements in the process and outcomes of education, how it can promote innovative policies and practice, and how it may be successfully disseminated. Whether research-informed or research-based, policy and its implementation is often assessed on such 'hard' indicators of impact as changes in the number of students gaining five or more A to C grades in national examinations or a percentage fall in the number of exclusions in inner city schools. Such measures are necessarily crude, with large samples smoothing out errors and disguising instances of significant success or failure. Even when 'measurable' in such a fashion, however, the impact of any educational change or intervention may require a period of years to become observable. This paper considers circumstances in which short-term change may be implausible or difficult to observe. It explores how impact is currently theorized and researched and promotes the concept of 'soft' indicators of impact in circumstances in which the pursuit of conventional quantitative and qualitative evidence is rendered impractical within a reasonable cost and timeframe. Such indicators are characterized by their avowedly subjective, anecdotal and impressionistic provenance and have particular importance in the context of complex community education issues where the assessment of any impact often faces considerable problems of access. These indicators include the testimonies of those on whom the research intervention or policy focuses (for example, students, adult learners), the formative effects that are often reported (for example, by head teachers, community leaders) and media coverage. The collation and convergence of a wide variety of soft indicators (Where there is smoke …) is argued to offer a credible means of identifying subtle processes that are often neglected as evidence of potential and actual impact (… there is fire).

Balancing deceit and disguise: How to successfully fool the defender in a 1 vs. 1 situation in rugby

Suddenly changing direction requires a whole body reorientation strategy. In sporting duels such as an attacker vs. a defender in rugby, successful body orientation/reorientation strategies are essential for successful performance. The aim of this study is to examine which biomechanical factors, while taking into account biomechanical constraints, are used by an attacker in a 1 vs. 1 duel in rugby. More specifically we wanted to examine how an attacker tries to deceive the defender yet disguise his intentions by comparing effective deceptive movements (DM+), ineffective deceptive movements (DM-), and non-deceptive movements (NDM). Eight French amateur expert rugby union players were asked to perform DMs and NDMs in a real 1 vs. 1 duel. For each type of movement (DM+, DM-, NDM) different relevant orientation/reorientation parameters, medio-lateral displacement of the center of mass (COM), foot, head, upper trunk, and lower trunk yaw; and upper trunk roll were analyzed and compared. Results showed that COM displacement and lower trunk yaw were minimized during DMs while foot displacement along with head and upper trunk yaw were exaggerated during DMs (DM+ and DM-). This would suggest that the player is using exaggerated body-related information to consciously deceive the defender into thinking he will run in a given direction while minimizing other postural control parameters to disguise a sudden change in posture necessary to modify final running direction. Further analysis of the efficacy of deceptive movements showed how the disguise and deceit strategies needed to be carefully balanced to successfully fool the defender. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.