What is the impact of research funding on research productivity?

A research protocol for our prospective study of research funding. How much research funding improves research productivity is a question that has relevance for all funding agencies and governments around the world. Previous studies have used observational data that compares productivity between winners of different amounts of funding, but researchers who win lots of funding are usually very different from those who win little or no funding. This difference creates potentially serious confounding which biases any estimate of the effect of funding based on observational data that simply compares research output for those who did and did not win funding. This means we do not currently know the return on investment for our research dollars, of which billions are invested around the world every year. By using a study design that incorporates randomisation this will be the world’s first unbiased study of the impact of researcher funding.

Maximising the impact of research: the NCCR North-South approach: Fourth NCCR North-South Report on Effectiveness

Interest is growing in the impact that science can have on reducing poverty in the global South. If we understand impact as the “demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and the economy”, the concept encompasses a variety of contributions of research-related knowledge and skills that benefit people and the environment. One reason for the growing interest in impact in this context is research councils’ increasing focus on documenting the social and environmental benefits of science, as indicated by the above quotation from the British research councils. Another reason is that research funding agencies from the private and public sectors are now more interested in social innovations for solving problems on the ground. Research can indeed influence policymakers’ views, policy development, funding patterns, and implementation or practice. This is promising for those who would like to improve – and prove – the influence research can have on policy and practice. It is also of importance for better understanding the intended and unintended effects of research. This report presents the NCCR North-South approach to increasing the impact of development-oriented research. It explains how we can maximise our impact and how we can assess whether our efforts have worked, based on six case studies from around the world. The report is of interest to all researchers who wish to respond to policy and practice from their point of view and who are keen on publicising their evidence. It is also relevant to those who teach how to maximise research impact.

Measuring the economic impact of Research Joint Ventures supported by the EU Framework Programme

The objective of this paper is to analyse the effects of international R&D cooperation on firms’ economic performance. Our approach, based on a complete data set with information about Spanish participants in research joint ventures supported by the EU Framework Programme during the period 1995-2005, establishes a recursive model structure to capture the relationship between R&D cooperation, knowledge generation and economic results, which are measured by labour productivity. In the analysis we take into account that the participation in this specific type of cooperative projects implies a selection process that includes both the self-selection by participants to join the consortia and the selection of projects by the European Commission to award the public aid. Empirical analysis has confirmed that: (1) R&D co-operation has a positive impact on the technological capacity of firms, captured through intan-gible fixed assets and (2) the technological capacity of firms is positively related to their productivity.

Almetrics: measuring the influence of the media on the social impact of research

Social media is changing the way we interact, present ideas and information and judge the quality of content and contributions. In recent years there have been hundreds of platforms to freely share all kinds of information and connect across networks. These new tools generate activity statistics and interactions among users such as mentions, retweets, conversations, comments on blogs or Facebook; managers references showing popularity ratings of more references shared by other researchers or repositories that generate statistics of visits or downloads of articles. This paper analyzes that have meaning and implications altmetrics, what are its advantages and critical platforms (Almetric.com, ImpactStory, Plos altmetrics, PlumX), reports progress and benefits for authors, publishers and librarians. It concluded that the value of alternative metrics as a complementary tool citation analysis is evident, although it is suggested that you should dig deeper into this issue to unravel the meaning and the potential value of these indicators to assess their potential.

Assessing the Societal Impact of Research: The Relational Engagement Approach

Marketing and policy researchers seeking to increase the societal impact of their scholarship should engage directly with relevant stakeholders. For maximum societal effect, this engagement needs to occur both within the research process and throughout the complex process of knowledge transfer. A relational engagement approach to research impact is proposed as complementary and building upon traditional approaches. Traditional approaches to impact employ bibliometric measures and focus on the creation and use of journal articles by scholarly audiences, an important but incomplete part of the academic process. The authors suggest expanding the strategies and measures of impact to include process assessments for specific stakeholders across the entire course of impact: from the creation, awareness, and use of knowledge to societal impact. This relational engagement approach involves the co-creation of research with audiences beyond academia. The authors hope to begin a dialogue on the strategies researchers can make to increase the potential societal benefits of their research.

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).

Development of procedures for assessing the impact of vocational education research and development on vocational education (Project IMPACT).

Funding agreement no.: R-31-20-X-0141-166.

Research training and national innovation systems in Australia, Finland and the United States : a policy and systems study supported by 30 case studies of research students in the fields of geospatial science, wireless communication, biosciences, and materials science and engineering

Reforms to the national research and research training system by the Commonwealth Government of Australia sought to effectively connect research conducted in universities to Australia's national innovation system. Research training has a key role in ensuring an adequate supply of highly skilled people for the national innovation system. During their studies, research students produce and disseminate a massive amount of new knowledge. Prior to this study, there was no research that examined the contribution of research training to Australia's national innovation system despite the existence of policy initiatives aiming to enhance this contribution. Given Australia's below average (but improving) innovation performance compared to other OECD countries, the inclusion of Finland and the United States provided further insights into the key research question. This study examined three obvious ways that research training contributes to the national innovation systems in the three countries: the international mobility and migration of research students and graduates, knowledge production and distribution by research students, and the impact of research training as advanced human capital formation on economic growth. Findings have informed the concept of a research training culture of innovation that aims to enhance the contribution of research training to Australia's national innovation system. Key features include internationally competitive research and research training environments; research training programs that equip students with economically-relevant knowledge and the capabilities required by employers operating in knowledge-based economies; attractive research careers in different sectors; a national commitment to R&D as indicated by high levels of gross and business R&D expenditure; high private and social rates of return from research training; and the horizontal coordination of key organisations that create policy for, and/or invest in research training.

A case study approach to estimating the burden of research misconduct in publicly funded medical research

The economic impact of research misconduct in medical research has been unexplored. While research misconduct in publicly funded medical research has increasingly been the object of discussion, public policy debate, government and institutional action, and scientific research, the costs of research misconduct have been unexamined. The author develops a model to estimate the per case cost of research misconduct, specifically the costs of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, in publicly funded medical research. Using the database of Research Misconduct Findings maintained by the Office of Research Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services, the model is used to estimate costs of research misconduct in public funded medical research among faculty during the period 2000-2005.^

The contribution of research to Australian policy responses to heroin dependence 1990-2001: a personal retrospection

Periodic public concern about heroin use has been a major driver of Australian drug policy in the four decades since heroin use was first reported. The number of heroin-dependent people in Australia has increased from several hundreds in the late 1960s to around 100000 by the end of the 1990s. In this paper I do the following: (1) describe collaborative research on heroin dependence that was undertaken between 1991 and 2001 by researchers at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre: (2) discuss the contribution that this research may have made to the formulation of policies towards the treatment of heroin dependence during a period when the policy debate crystallized around the issue of whether or not Australia should conduct a controlled trial of heroin prescription; and (3) reflect on the relationships between research and policy-making in the addictions field, specifically on the roles of investigator-initiated and commissioned research, the interface between researchers, funders and policymakers: and the need to be realistic about the likely impact of research on policy and practice.