Hello SAM,

You have raised a wonderful question about the Impacts and/or True benefits of Academic Research and how do we Measure these.

Usually research are problem solving agents. They solve the problems of variety of stakeholders like farmers, human, citizens, livestock, entrepreneurs, etc. So, most important factor is the selection of research topic. It is always intended towards solving a particular problem or exploring something which is not known. So, real benefits and impacts are anticipated before starting of the project. I hope all the researchers do it with their best effort to achieve it.

Putting drops together makes the pond............... So, it is the individual contributions which make the cumulatively a big programme. That's why team and collaborative research are gaining upper hand now a days.

True benefit or impact can be measured for individual output which can be cumulatively measured for the institute, then cumulatively for the organisation and ultimately for the country.

Again this much assessment wont be sufficient. The impact can be assessed pre-intervention and post-intervention economic, political, social and other types of impacts. Most discussions about research in terms of journal quality, journal impact factors, citations, h-index, quality of publishers, open access, etc, are also important as they contribute to the quality of research.

Overall, the quantum of fund the government is pouring to research is so meagre that you can't always think of too much public impact. There are many constraints to the impact and adoption of research technologies and they need to be sufficiently supported by government policies. You can't blame only research for the outcome. There are many more factors which affect this issue.

Dear all

There are things which we cannot measure accurately. Assessing the impact of research is needs personal judgement - like assessing whether or not a person is fit for a job.

Discoveries of new phenomena and creation of new knowledge are the main tasks of scientific research. Making new knowledge is neither easy nor profitable in the short term - says Ahmed Zewail (Nature 2010, vol 468, p. 347)... and the final outcome based on the research results depends on many variables which are completely external, i.e. not under academic or scientific control.

Your question seems to address the science - society link and there we have to better understand the interesting relation between science and policy. Sutherland et al. recentley presented "a collaboratively-derived science- policy research agenda". PLoS ONE 7(3): e31824. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031824.

regards Bernhard

Dear Sam,

You raised a question about which I was thinking since last two years. I think the academic research work is not fruitful up to that mark. The academic research work is constraint up to degrees and publications.........................

Regards

Ashwani Kumar

This is a very important question and it has been a hot debate between the research institutes and universities. My few years in the research institute have made really appreciate their contribution to development of the nation economy. And it would be surprising to findout these institutes get little grant or support as compared to the universities, yet they have contribute to the development and spread of local technology thus generating job opportunities.

Apart from the amentioned ways of grading a research, it should also be graded on its contribution to dev elopment

Interesting topic =)

It is an incompatible question.

Science is science, the rest is the rest of the world. Academic research is devoted to science and nothing else.. there is no need to quantify any impact, what for?.. truth is truth. do whatever you want with it.

Relating Science to society, and even worse to politics is killing Science..

It is may be time to split the universities into :

-the pure academic

-and the functional service to society (mostly education)

Well it has always been this in the Idea, but with the time going (monetarisation of everything) I think it is corrupted by now. The academia lost its purity.

Probably we are all corrupted already on this portal. Of course, and this is the starting point of politics.

In all disagreements, everybody should recognise that a free-space (beyond any impact and measurements) is necessary to allow the birth of innovation.

To defend this space, trying to find any "impact" or "benefit" is the wrong strategy (that is already giving up the freedom).

It is an important question, and an urgent case.. before even our thinkings will be wanted to have impacts...

The beginning of everything is freedom. Freespace for free , just for fun !

Fun .. just for fun..

(some perverted have fun by finding impacts, by measuring "progress")

(or is the planet too small, humans too many, that we need to organise, "efficientisize" everything?)

cheers

lukas

Lukas, unless you are just trying to be negative about this discussion which is your choice, academic research is not only about science, it is about research in all disciplines covered in universities. Also to say there is no point relating science to society ignores and underscores the HUGE HUGE impacts science, technology, medicine, etc are having on society. Rather than being cynical about such discussion, we need to learn how to enunciate and celebrate the impacts and benefits of academic research, especially as these questions are being raised more often now than in the past.

It is just a question of definition. My Science definition covers also art,philosophy,sociology and so on..

To me academic research should be a free space.

On the other hand, one needs to manage "progress", then of course this discussion is helpful. But be conscient that "managing" needs values, measurements for "progress/benefits/values".

Here there is a dangerous trend to see everything with the same eyes (of the west, from the money side).

If the politics need answers from academia to set up their mind, we have the wrong politicians.. they should be the guarant of our societal values? they should now where to go (since they know where their voters want to go).

It is probably very urgent to send those politicians back to the university, so that they can build up their mind through "research".

My opinion is that academia should not rule the politicians.. different world.

It is not the responsability of academia to solve the politicians problems.

We should leave this responsability to them and be carefull not to endorse it.

Should they spend more money to academia if they do not find any satisfactory answer to their (I admit very difficult) problems. But this spending is for free !! or for fun, since with fun the human brain is working best..

Science has really big impacts on society.. and yes, we should learn how to handle this.. despite deep engineering/biochemical know-how, we still have over-fished ocean, food that is no food anymore, climate change and WAR (everywhere).

Be careful in setting the values of Progress..

May be Bhutan is a good place to learn.. and for sure not the US (I do not want to offend anybody, to me the US is a failed experiment of freedom)

Briefly, academic research is highly beneficial for students and the universities. Therefore, academic research should be encouraged and measured. A good idea!

From the discussion so far, it is obvious that alot of people still do not really understand what is meant by Research Impact and I told you in my introduction that it is already happening in some countries, here is proof:

"Research Councils UK (RCUK) defines research impact as 'the demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and the economy'.

Research impact embraces all the diverse ways that research-related skills benefit individuals, organisations and nations. These include:

(a) fostering global economic performance, and specifically the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom

(b) increasing the effectiveness of public services and policy

(c) enhancing quality of life, health and creative output.

Types of research impact

We aim to achieve research impact across all our activities. This can involve academic impact, economic and societal impact or both:

1. Academic impact is the demonstrable contribution that excellent social and economic research makes to scientific advances, across and within disciplines, including significant advances in understanding, method, theory and application.

2. Economic and societal impact is the demonstrable contribution that excellent social and economic research makes to society and the economy, of benefit to individuals, organisations and nations.

The impact of social science research can be categorised as:

(a) Instrumental: influencing the development of policy, practice or service provision, shaping legislation, altering behaviour

(b) Conceptual: contributing to the understanding of policy issues, reframing debates

(c) Capacity building: through technical and personal skill development."

To read more about this, go to:

http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding-and-guidance/tools-and-resources/impact-toolkit/what-how-and-why/what-is-research-impact.aspx

Hello,

and the next sentence is:

Maximising the benefits of our investment in social science is central to our Strategic Plan 2009-14. This commitment is illustrated in our Delivery Plan 2011-2015 which sets out how we will ensure impact is central to all our activities.

So, the society is only ready to support academia when there is a return..

of course a return one can anticipate .. because it has to fit to some measurement scales.. only those with a good score can be funded.. so we fund what is already foreseen (those optimising the measurement rules)..

sorry, this is politics.. not academia. it is the wrong strategy to defend academia.

it is selling ourselves to some system that is holding us between measurement scales. (this leads to the globalisation of thinking.. )

for sure this impact measurement is interesting. But it will only help cut budgets, make bubbles on themes which are good in the actual value-system.. (it is already the case today... Graphene, Mind-simulation, nano, bio..)

where will be the diversity? why is there this need to homogenise everything..

is it than easier to govern?

are our governements afraid of going their own way? are we , "academia" afraid of going our own way..

do we need impacts to tell our research is needed?

one more polemic sentence: after the US, comes the UK..

Lukas, What is US got to do with reference to research impact measures in UK?

Research has to serve society. No doubt. The problem is how this is defined. A clear tendency toward a narrower and narrower definition over the last few years, tied too strongly to industry and its needs in the short term, leaving more fundamental research behind to some extent, or research seen as "an impediment to progress" such as research related to protecting the environment. To a certain extent, it seems as if the notion of "societal needs" has been highjacked by "need for economic growth". Not incompatible but not necessarily synonymous.

Dear Sam, it is my measuring of the contamination by finance: spoiled=US, almost lost=UK, on the way to hell=Europe...

Robert did a good synthesis of my position. Just the first sentence is not perfect.

"has to"? it is the other way round.. society has to serve research.. society should just accept it is needed, it is necessary for itself. Without free thinking no (new) values, no society (progress).

Lukas, we will have to agree to disagree on our position of who should serve whom. I believe that it is my privilege to be able to perform science through public funding, and not the other way around.

It is sure the highest privilege to enjoy freedom through public funding, and I am grateful that this is possible. And of course I feel I have to give it back in some way. The point is: I do not have to.. (I feel I do, that puts on pressure.. a little responsability can be expected..) It is based on confidence (responsability).

But we are not responsible for the society.. the politician are.. do not reverse it.

Do not let Science endorse the makers failure. Do not blame Science for the lack of impact-rich research. I admit we have ourselve to set up an internal refreshing of what our jobs should be. To much efforts go into financial backup. Instead of going for excellence, we run after fundings (promising impacts of our results).

Excellence is the point when you earn the confidence of society. Society should know itself what it gets from academia.

May be we need to help them on that point, giving them good benefits reasons to support us.. but I am afraid, this is because we may have lost excellence..

More advertising, does not make the product better.(oh I speak the contaminated language)

The impacts for now are : an exploited Planet.. the benefits: some (me) have a beautiful life. others..

How do we measure? Money :-) SUSTAINABILITY should be the most important factor.

So, we should learn how to manage sustainability.

For now we forced Nature. Our knowledge of today should allow us to understand Nature. Then we may behave naturally.

One tool which is new and (almost) affordable is ubiquitous communication.. this at least has the potential of having everybody informed (freely?). So if we do care of keeping the Net FREE, there is a chance that a lot of Brain-washing will belong to the past.

Education is probably the highest priority for each of us in this RG.

Then comes the availability of Energy. First save Energy as much as you can, then use free energy. Germany is on the best way to have "green" Energy (sustainable?). Some more 10 years, and everybody can copy this. A lot of geopolitics will belong to the past.

When Europe would finally decide to stop the financial gambling (by having those euro-bonds and starting the "Tobin"-tax) than progressively our values can go back to something more human than today"s view of impacts/benefits.

So yes, impacts/benefits but not in the sense to try to defend our Science in today's globalized system. But something new beyond the monetary infection.

Lukas, let us not get hung up about economic benefits of research. Measuring research impact is much more than that. It can be about societal impact to society and benefit to individuals, organisations and nations. It can also be Instrumental in the development of policy, practice or service provision, shaping legislation, altering behaviour. It can be Conceptual in contributing to the understanding of policy issues, reframing debates and can be about Capacity building through technical and personal skill development. We have heard your concerns about the economic aspects, let's hear what others have to say about these other aspects of research impacts. We may all learn something new or different perspectives.

Here is what researchers at Oxford University have to say recently about the impact of their research:

"Research carried out by Oxford’s staff, students and alumni has, over the centuries, made an enormous impact on the world of ideas, on our fundamental understanding of the physical world and of biology, on health prevention and treatment, on public policy, international affairs, the arts, business and much, much more."

Read more at http://www.ox.ac.uk/research/research_impact/

I am sure other universities around the world can make similar claims to a more, similar or lesser degree.

Do the conditions specified in the application for research funds constrain free thinking that is necessary for good research?

Mr. Samuel,

There are countless impacts of academic research, but I will focus on three. One is knowledge discovery. Second is the cultivation of academic excellence which strengthens the quality of a university. Third is the positive contribution to our society in generating economic growth and employment. Ultimately, the aim of university research is to solve present societal problems and revolutionize human experience for a better future.

Measuring these impacts would require a lot of research, but it is absolutely doable. Take for instance the Apollo program by the University of Maryland. Upon completion, the nation's economy was dramatically impacted generating 34,000 jobs. Another great example of measuring the impact of academic research is a study conducted by Thursby and Thursday (2011). Basically, they explored a database of research studies at 11 major US universities; variables included faculty involvement and disclosure in conducting research studies. The authors examined faculty research profiles, specifically those faculty members in science and engineering department. Over the course of 17 years, they found that research-oriented faculty members are more likely to get licensing and tenure. Moreover, they discovered a strong correlation between conducting university research and government funding. This is not surprising at all since universities across the United States are mostly funded by the federal government to seek new discoveries that will ultimately promote economic growth. 

It may be blurry for others to recognize the impact of academic research, but if these high quality research studies are interpreted effectively and used properly to improve the quality of life, then there is no doubt that academic research results in a positive development in the transformation of our society. 

Source: Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2011). Faculty participation in licensing: Implications for research. Research Policy, 40(1), 20-29. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.014