Search

Abstract There is increasing focus to review the societal impact of research through assessment and research excellence frameworks. These often link to financial and reputational incentives within the academic community. However, timeframes to demonstrate impact using these approaches are often long and are not designed to show benefit to service collaborators who require evidence of improvement and change to their services more immediately. Impacts that are measured this way may also miss out on unintended and positive impacts that occur as by-products of research, or through the ‘ripple effect’ that research may have on practice. Importantly, demonstrating how research makes a difference can improve the research culture in services, and motivations in service partners to become, and stay involved in research. This article describes, and provides access to, a tool called VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) that was developed by a community of practice involving 12 NHS organisations through blending evidence from the literature, practice and service users. We describe the types of impact that have been collected by VICTOR and explore how collecting impact in this way might help research-practice partnerships and inform research methodologies and may be useful to show impacts alongside, and shortly after the research process.

It is a general understanding that higher education has characteristics of an "experience good" because the quality cannot be determined before receiving the service, which induces information asymmetry. In response to reducing the asymmetry, external assessment tools like international accreditations have emerged in higher education, which is especially evident in the field of business and management research. Quality is an integral part of reputation and legitimisation, so business schools actively engage in the accreditation race. In order to ensure legitimacy in the higher education market, business schools pay special attention to their intellectual output. It is reflected in the development of academic policies designed to encourage publication activities. It is pivotal to analyse how international accreditations contribute to the research performance and impact of business schools. The results of the study provide evidence that AACSB accreditation contributes to the research performance, however, it does not contribute to increasing the impact of the papers. Since the signalling research-based reputation is important for business schools, the study places attention on further examination of determinants of impactful research as international accreditation only determines the growth of quantity not the quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is increasing focus to review the societal impact of research through assessment and research excellence frameworks. These often link to financial and reputational incentives within the academic community. However, timeframes to demonstrate impact using these approaches are often long and are not designed to show benefit to service collaborators who require evidence of improvement and change to their services more immediately. Impacts that are measured this way may also miss out on unintended and positive impacts that occur as by-products of research, or through the 'ripple effect' that research may have on practice. Importantly, demonstrating how research makes a difference can improve the research culture in services, and motivations in service partners to become, and stay involved in research. This article describes, and provides access to, a tool called VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) that was developed by a community of practice involving 12 NHS organisations through blending evidence from the literature, practice and service users. We describe the types of impact that have been collected by VICTOR and explore how collecting impact in this way might help research-practice partnerships and inform research methodologies and may be useful to show impacts alongside, and shortly after the research process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Being cited by policy documents is an important indicator for assessing the policy impact of research. The purpose of this paper was to examine the associations between an article's scientific collaborations and its citations received from policy documents. Research articles published between 2000 and 2018 in 86 journals under the category of "Information Science & Library Science" (LIS) in Journal Citation Reports 2020 were selected as the data sample (n = 40,137). The metadata of the articles was extracted from the Web of Science. The outcome variable of this study, policy citations of each article, were obtained from Overton (one of the largest policy citation databases). Standard negative binomial regression models and zero-inflated negative binomial regression models were conducted to examine the dataset. Linear regression models and six selected LIS journals were used to check the robustness of the results. The results revealed that the number of countries had significant and positive associations with policy citations (p < 0.001), the number of authors and the number of affiliations had no significant associations with policy citations, while controlling the other variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bowen and colleagues ask us to re-imagine how to conduct research in academic-practice partnerships, and to develop capacity in the applied research and health workforce to do this. This commentary reinforces their messages, and describes a framework of research capacity development for impact (RCDi) which emphasizes active and continuous experiential learning within research partnerships. The RCDi framework includes the need to focus on multiple levels in the collaboration architecture, and describes principles of working that aims to increase impact on services, and learning opportunities for all partners.

Bowen and colleagues ask us to re-imagine how to conduct research in academic-practice partnerships, and to develop capacity in the applied research and health workforce to do this. This commentary reinforces their messages, and describes a framework of research capacity development for impact (RCDi) which emphasizes active and continuous experiential learning within research partnerships. The RCDi framework includes the need to focus on multiple levels in the collaboration architecture, and describes principles of working that aims to increase impact on services, and learning opportunities for all partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]