Derrick Gemma E, Samuel Gabrielle N
Educational Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YL UK.
Minerva. 2016;54:75-97. doi: 10.1007/s11024-016-9290-0. Epub 2016 Feb 9.
Realising the societal gains from publicly funded health and medical research requires a model for a reflexive evaluation precedent for the societal impact of research. This research explores UK Research Excellence Framework evaluators' values and opinions and assessing societal impact, prior to the assessment taking place. Specifically, we discuss the characteristics of two different impact assessment extremes - the "quality-focused" evaluation and "societal impact-focused" evaluation. We show the wide range of evaluator views about impact, and that these views could be conceptually reflected in a range of different positions along a conceptual evaluation scale. We describe the characteristics of these extremes in detail, and discuss the different beliefs evaluators had which could influence where they positioned themselves along the scale. These decisions, we argue, when considered together, form a dominant definition of societal impact that influences the direction of its evaluation by the panel.
要从公共资助的健康与医学研究中实现社会收益，需要一个针对研究的社会影响进行反思性评估的先例模型。本研究在评估进行之前，探讨了英国研究卓越框架评估者对评估社会影响的价值观和看法。具体而言，我们讨论了两种不同影响评估极端情况的特征——“以质量为重点”的评估和“以社会影响为重点”的评估。我们展示了评估者对影响的广泛观点，并且这些观点在概念评估量表上的一系列不同位置可能在概念上得到体现。我们详细描述了这些极端情况的特征，并讨论了评估者持有的不同信念，这些信念可能会影响他们在量表上的定位。我们认为，这些决策综合起来形成了社会影响的主导定义，进而影响了评审小组对其评估的方向。
