Background
Methods
The impact indicators proposed in the 2010 REF impact pilot exercise are critically
reviewed and appraised using insights from the relevant literature and empirical data
collected for the University of Oxford's REF pilot submission in clinical medicine.
The empirical data were gathered from existing administrative sources and an online
administrative survey carried out by the university's Medical Sciences Division among
289 clinical medicine faculty members (48.1% response rate).
Results
The feasibility and scope of measuring research impact in clinical medicine in a given
university are assessed. Twenty impact indicators from seven categories proposed by
HEFCE are presented; their strengths and limitations are discussed using insights
from the relevant biomedical and research policy literature.
Conclusions
While the 2010 pilot exercise has confirmed that the majority of the proposed indicators
have some validity, there are significant challenges in operationalising and measuring
these indicators reliably, as well as in comparing evidence of research impact across
different cases in a standardised manner. It is suggested that the public funding
agencies, medical research charities, universities, and the wider medical research
community work together to develop more robust methodologies for capturing and describing
impact, including more valid and reliable impact indicators.
0 comments:
Post a Comment