Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/10603
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSamuel, G-
dc.contributor.authorDerrick, G-
dc.date.accessioned2015-04-20T14:56:20Z-
dc.date.available2015-04-20T14:56:20Z-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifier.citationResearch Evaluation: 1–13, (April 2015)en_US
dc.identifier.issn1471-5449-
dc.identifier.urihttp://rev.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/04/16/reseval.rvv007-
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/10603-
dc.description© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en_US
dc.description.abstractThe relative newness of ‘impact’ as a criterion for research assessment has meant that there is yet to be an empirical study examining the process of its evaluation. This article is part of a broader study which is exploring the panel-based peer and end-user review process for societal impact evaluation using the UK’s national research assessment exercise, the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014, as a case study. In particular, this article explores the different perceptions REF2014 evaluators had regarding societal impact, preceding their evaluation of this measure as part of REF2014. Data are drawn from 62 interviews with evaluators from the health-related Panel A and its subpanels, prior to the REF2014 exercise taking place. We show how going into the REF exercise, evaluators from Panel A had different perceptions about how to characterize impact and how to define impact realization in terms of research outcomes and the research process. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for future impact evaluation frameworks, as well as postulating a series of hypotheses about the ways in which evaluators’ different perceptions going into an impact assessment could potentially influence the evaluation of impact submissions. Using REF2014 as a case study, these hypotheses will be tested in interviews with REF2014 evaluators post-assessment.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), UK. Grant number: ES/K008897/1.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherOxford University Press (OUP)en_US
dc.subjectSocietal impacten_US
dc.subjectResearch Excellence Frameworken_US
dc.subjectQualitative researchen_US
dc.subjectResearch evaluationen_US
dc.titleSocietal impact evaluation: Exploring evaluator perceptions of the characterization of impact under the REF2014en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv007-
dc.relation.isPartOfResearch Evaluation-
dc.relation.isPartOfResearch Evaluation-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Staff by College/Department/Division-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Staff by College/Department/Division/College of Health and Life Sciences-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Staff by College/Department/Division/College of Health and Life Sciences/Dept of Life Sciences-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Staff by College/Department/Division/College of Health and Life Sciences/Dept of Life Sciences/Biological Sciences-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Staff by Institute/Theme-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Staff by Institute/Theme/Institute of Environmental, Health and Societies-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Staff by Institute/Theme/Institute of Environmental, Health and Societies/Health Economics-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Specialist Centres-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Specialist Centres/HERG-
Appears in Collections:Health Economics Research Group (HERG)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Fulltext.pdf171.53 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.