Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The evaluation scale

Electronic data

  • DerrickSamuel_2015_Manuscript_revised

    Rights statement: The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9290-0

    Accepted author manuscript, 259 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

  • DerrickGE_Minerva

    Rights statement: C.The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

    Final published version, 465 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

The evaluation scale: exploring decisions about societal impact in peer review panels

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>1/03/2016
<mark>Journal</mark>Minerva
Issue number1
Volume54
Number of pages23
Pages (from-to)75-97
Publication statusPublished
Early online date9/02/16
Original languageEnglish

Abstract

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.

Bibliographic note

C.The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9290-0