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
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
Final published version
Licence: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - The evaluation scale
T2 - exploring decisions about societal impact in peer review panels
AU - Derrick, Gemma Elizabeth
AU - Samuel, Gabrielle N.
N1 - 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
PY - 2016/3/1
Y1 - 2016/3/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - societal impact
KW - Peer Review
KW - evaluation frameworks
KW - impact
KW - qualitative
U2 - 10.1007/s11024-016-9290-0
DO - 10.1007/s11024-016-9290-0
M3 - Journal article
VL - 54
SP - 75
EP - 97
JO - Minerva
JF - Minerva
SN - 0026-4695
IS - 1
ER -