1
00:00:01,020 --> 00:00:06,570
Okay. Research empowered. Have you heard the term research impact?

2
00:00:07,740 --> 00:00:11,010
Yeah. Who hasn't? Who?

3
00:00:11,130 --> 00:00:15,000
You never heard the term. Thank you for being so honest. That's. That's really good.

4
00:00:15,520 --> 00:00:20,030
And how many of you are from the UK? Most of you.

5
00:00:20,040 --> 00:00:23,610
And then? And then what have we got? The States? Yeah.

6
00:00:24,000 --> 00:00:27,570
Anywhere else. Canada. Okay. Africa.

7
00:00:28,120 --> 00:00:31,770
Africa could be a bit more specific, said Africa.

8
00:00:32,370 --> 00:00:35,370
Right. Which part of Africa? Kenya. Okay. I don't.

9
00:00:35,370 --> 00:00:38,370
I don't know what's happening about research, in fact, in Kenya,

10
00:00:38,610 --> 00:00:46,640
but certainly I'm in the middle of just finishing a big systematic literature review, which I was hoping to be able to show this day.

11
00:00:46,650 --> 00:00:51,210
But in fact, it hasn't been signed off yet. So I can't, you know, all that sort of stuff.

12
00:00:51,930 --> 00:00:57,809
And actually, the Canadian Institute for Health Research have got a really great chunk of work on research,

13
00:00:57,810 --> 00:01:01,650
in fact, which is slightly different from the mainstream stuff in the UK.

14
00:01:01,650 --> 00:01:04,830
But but very interesting. But certainly research impact is big in Canada.

15
00:01:04,830 --> 00:01:08,549
It's big in Australia, it's big here for reasons I'm going to tell you about.

16
00:01:08,550 --> 00:01:14,750
So. So what? My qualifications for telling you about research impact. Well, I'm.

17
00:01:14,920 --> 00:01:18,150
I'm like, Shawn, I've been interested in knowledge translation for years.

18
00:01:19,560 --> 00:01:24,960
So so this impact stuff I've I've got an ambivalent relationship with.

19
00:01:25,230 --> 00:01:34,650
But two things are sort of relevant. I mean, apart from the fact that research on research is an interest of mine and research into translation.

20
00:01:35,760 --> 00:01:44,550
Firstly, my previous job at Queen Mary was dean for research impact, among other things.

21
00:01:45,270 --> 00:01:47,879
In other words, there was a dean for teaching and Dean for research.

22
00:01:47,880 --> 00:01:51,630
And because Queen Mary was rather forward looking to appoint a Dean for research impact.

23
00:01:51,990 --> 00:02:00,000
And so my job was to sort of scurry around and help people who are doing research to try and generate evidence of impact,

24
00:02:01,320 --> 00:02:10,530
which was quite fun, and of course to liaise with external stakeholders, if you like, to to improve the impact.

25
00:02:10,530 --> 00:02:16,259
And I think a lot of higher education institutions in the UK are now making appointments,

26
00:02:16,260 --> 00:02:20,190
but whether they make senior academic appointments or whether they make junior administrative

27
00:02:20,190 --> 00:02:23,759
appointments around research impact is something that someone really ought to do.

28
00:02:23,760 --> 00:02:32,790
Some research about, you know, is impact. This kind of is in fact the province of the press office or is it equivalent to research?

29
00:02:32,790 --> 00:02:40,530
And teaching is another seriously important piece of activity that universities these days have got to get into.

30
00:02:41,640 --> 00:02:52,320
I should say also that my academic background in critical social science means that there's a bit of me that is a bit cynical about the impact agenda,

31
00:02:52,320 --> 00:02:55,410
and I'm going to share that with you towards the end of this talk.

32
00:02:56,430 --> 00:03:01,559
But the other reason why impact has been a really big part of my life for the last

33
00:03:01,560 --> 00:03:06,870
two or three years is because who who's head of the research excellence framework?

34
00:03:06,870 --> 00:03:11,279
The ref? Yeah, probably most of the UK people watching all of you.

35
00:03:11,280 --> 00:03:14,640
So you haven't a lot of, you know, putting your hands up who heard to the ref.

36
00:03:15,870 --> 00:03:24,420
Okay, about half the people. Okay. The ref, the research excellence framework, some of the ones described it as the university's Olympics in the UK.

37
00:03:24,450 --> 00:03:31,469
Although Australia's got a ref, most of most of the sort of high income countries are developing ref equivalents.

38
00:03:31,470 --> 00:03:43,380
And what it is is every five, six, seven years all the universities get together and compete and rank each other in terms of whose research comes top.

39
00:03:43,880 --> 00:03:51,960
And until last year you'd rank universities just in terms of publications, how many pages you had published in The Lancet or whatever.

40
00:03:52,380 --> 00:03:58,709
And then these are the scores that go into that. But this ref, they introduced an impact category.

41
00:03:58,710 --> 00:04:01,800
So 20% of this ranking,

42
00:04:01,920 --> 00:04:10,740
which means 20% of the funding the government is going to give universities annually for the next six years or so will come from research impact.

43
00:04:10,890 --> 00:04:16,170
Now, that was terrifying because nobody had actually had their research impact assessed.

44
00:04:16,620 --> 00:04:23,999
Now, the way the ref was wrong was they people could apply for posts on a big committee

45
00:04:24,000 --> 00:04:30,270
called a panel and then that panel for medicine got to spawn six sub panels,

46
00:04:31,230 --> 00:04:38,400
one in clinical clinical medicine, one in the sort of primary care public health, one in psychiatry, neuroscience, etc., etc.

47
00:04:38,400 --> 00:04:47,820
So that was so there was a main panel, six sub panels, all assessing lots and lots of submissions, including academic papers and impact case studies,

48
00:04:47,820 --> 00:04:56,280
little stories about the impact now that the whole panel was chaired by a chap called Stephen Holgate.

49
00:04:57,690 --> 00:05:03,030
But the deputy chair was me. And so Stephen tended to take the lead on the research bits.

50
00:05:03,240 --> 00:05:07,230
And because of his interest in knowledge translation, he said, maybe you can sort out the impact.

51
00:05:07,470 --> 00:05:09,180
In fact, I didn't sort out the impact,

52
00:05:09,180 --> 00:05:20,390
but I thought I had a lot to do with the sort of benchmarking and quality control of the assessment of how many impact case studies,

53
00:05:20,640 --> 00:05:25,290
I don't know, several hundred. So you know, where all the universities had submitted them.

54
00:05:25,290 --> 00:05:31,240
So that was an exhausting exercise of the assessment of research and its impact.

55
00:05:31,260 --> 00:05:34,920
So that's that's why I came to research impact.

56
00:05:35,250 --> 00:05:45,710
And this talk is an adapted version of, of one that began life as me explaining to people from the point of view of the ref.

57
00:05:45,720 --> 00:05:54,840
Now I don't want to bore you too much with ref, but it is quite a good thing to start with because it really, you know, existed.

58
00:05:55,410 --> 00:06:00,570
The results of the ref are helping to pay my salary and the salary of other academics in this room.

59
00:06:02,250 --> 00:06:06,120
So there's a sense that it's quite real, even if you don't agree with it.

60
00:06:08,280 --> 00:06:12,540
Normally I would define my terms at the beginning of the lecture,

61
00:06:12,840 --> 00:06:21,600
but the problem with impact is it's differently defined in different usages of the term,

62
00:06:21,610 --> 00:06:27,720
and that is highly problematic because it sounds very clear what impact is.

63
00:06:27,870 --> 00:06:34,020
But I'm going to show you that it isn't clear who's who's on Twitter.

64
00:06:34,530 --> 00:06:37,559
And so you've got to follow Lego academics on Twitter.

65
00:06:37,560 --> 00:06:44,640
They're absolutely brilliant. So these these these academics, the Lego people, and they tweet out, of course, they're not real.

66
00:06:46,410 --> 00:06:54,930
But actually, one of the problems with this policy interest in research impact is that,

67
00:06:55,290 --> 00:06:58,740
as Sharon said, you get Twitter, we've got to use social media. Is it? Absolutely.

68
00:06:59,310 --> 00:07:05,070
We've we've got to do things that get our research out there to the people who are not sitting in the ivory towers.

69
00:07:05,080 --> 00:07:13,739
There's this enormous push. And actually, there comes a time when a lot of these accounts of impact already.

70
00:07:13,740 --> 00:07:17,010
Hang on. What did we do? We sent a press release to The Daily Telegraph. What is this?

71
00:07:17,010 --> 00:07:21,120
Is that really impact? And okay, so why all the fuss about impact?

72
00:07:21,960 --> 00:07:28,290
I've told you about the UK research excellence framework that happened over the last couple of years.

73
00:07:28,290 --> 00:07:31,769
It released its results the week before Christmas, I think.

74
00:07:31,770 --> 00:07:33,930
So some vice chancellors had a lousy Christmas.

75
00:07:35,760 --> 00:07:44,280
The UK Research Council's Medical Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Arts Humanities Research Council.

76
00:07:45,000 --> 00:07:47,280
For all grant applications that you put in,

77
00:07:47,280 --> 00:07:53,430
for those you now have to write a Pathways to Impact section as well as saying, This is a research I'm going to do.

78
00:07:53,760 --> 00:08:00,090
You also have to submit a little submission saying this is how I'm going to achieve impact from my research.

79
00:08:00,510 --> 00:08:03,330
And it's an I know because I sit on some of the panels, give the money.

80
00:08:03,840 --> 00:08:09,720
You may have a brilliant idea for your research, but if you haven't got a good pathways to impact submission, you won't get funded.

81
00:08:11,220 --> 00:08:15,510
In Europe, the European Framework Horizon 2020 is this.

82
00:08:15,510 --> 00:08:20,970
You know, you need to know about this because there's a lot of your taxes are going into into European research.

83
00:08:23,020 --> 00:08:29,690
2020, which is a big programme of research that is now being funded from last year through to next year.

84
00:08:31,240 --> 00:08:38,830
It's prioritising what they call societal impact. We need to make society better in whatever way it is, monetised or not.

85
00:08:39,160 --> 00:08:47,980
And again, you won't get a European grant unless you address impact World University rankings if you care about that,

86
00:08:49,180 --> 00:08:59,890
depending on the different metrics. Research impact outside the university sector is now contributing increasing amounts to the world rankings.

87
00:09:00,640 --> 00:09:04,750
But push all that aside and just look at the bottom.

88
00:09:06,370 --> 00:09:11,140
There's also something a bit more moral, a bit more fundamental.

89
00:09:11,950 --> 00:09:19,120
Do we want to just be sitting here and talking, or do we want to be useful to society?

90
00:09:20,050 --> 00:09:23,560
Whose grave is that? Karl Marx.

91
00:09:24,130 --> 00:09:29,380
So, so what he's saying is the philosophers, which means the academics, when in total you can sit there and talk all day.

92
00:09:29,530 --> 00:09:38,530
But actually, if as academics, you know, is a professor, I don't get a lot of satisfaction unless I can follow through and say,

93
00:09:38,530 --> 00:09:41,920
right, the stuff I've done to stop babies dying or whatever it is.

94
00:09:42,190 --> 00:09:48,340
So, so I think although some of us are quite cynical about this, this, you know, demonstrate your impact.

95
00:09:48,790 --> 00:09:58,180
In point of fact, there is something real in there, too. In addition, you know, I certainly in my previous job,

96
00:09:58,450 --> 00:10:04,120
one of the things I had to do was deal with and counsel and support sad academics who

97
00:10:04,120 --> 00:10:10,659
didn't feel that they got very far in life and that surely you don't want to spend 20,

98
00:10:10,660 --> 00:10:15,010
30 years and then think, well, what have I done?

99
00:10:15,070 --> 00:10:20,200
And also, of course, your impact, because the university is judged on it.

100
00:10:20,560 --> 00:10:27,500
It's coming up at your annual appraisal. You might be performance managed on it and you could be getting your your REM,

101
00:10:27,900 --> 00:10:32,490
the little letter that says you're fired because all you've done is publish clever papers.

102
00:10:32,500 --> 00:10:36,100
Okay, so now I'm going to give you some definitions.

103
00:10:36,250 --> 00:10:42,940
So this is rough impact and it is a bit dry, but there's not much of this.

104
00:10:43,120 --> 00:10:44,320
It does get more interesting.

105
00:10:44,980 --> 00:10:53,559
All you have to read is the yellow bits impact was very, very broadly defined and some of this stuff I was involved in writing.

106
00:10:53,560 --> 00:11:02,890
So we all know it's tedious. Hopefully the idea is that impact was we weren't prescriptive about impact.

107
00:11:03,100 --> 00:11:10,180
We said, look, for example, it could be this or this or this. And like you write on the student thing, any other reasonable answer type thing,

108
00:11:10,450 --> 00:11:16,060
but within the RAF you were not allowed to have impact within universities,

109
00:11:16,240 --> 00:11:23,020
you had to have impact outside universities because the Treasury want to know if we give this much to the higher education sector,

110
00:11:23,140 --> 00:11:32,110
what does society at large get back? So what were these impact case studies that I spent quite a lot of the last two years looking at,

111
00:11:32,110 --> 00:11:35,440
with which I spent quite a lot of time writing, some of them, which I'll tell you about.

112
00:11:36,310 --> 00:11:42,650
So this is the storyline of an impact case study. There was some kind of a problem, preferably big one research.

113
00:11:42,680 --> 00:11:46,870
This university aimed to solve the problem. The problem was solved.

114
00:11:47,050 --> 00:11:52,180
That means it was significant and the benefits spread far and wide.

115
00:11:52,180 --> 00:12:00,730
And you know, with your knowledge, translation, work those views studying this module, that is actually fairly easy to make a change here.

116
00:12:00,790 --> 00:12:06,400
It's much more difficult to roll it out to the to even the ward, let alone the hospital down the road.

117
00:12:06,640 --> 00:12:15,730
And so the idea is to get good marks on your impact case study, you had to have both significance and reach.

118
00:12:17,530 --> 00:12:25,569
Here's an example of an impact case study that I put together with Nick Wold, who is an epidemiologist, still is an epidemiologist at Queen Mary.

119
00:12:25,570 --> 00:12:32,770
So the argument was before 1993, most babies born with Down's syndrome were a surprise.

120
00:12:32,860 --> 00:12:39,520
People didn't know they were about to have the babies and they weren't you know, there was no sort of intervention.

121
00:12:39,970 --> 00:12:49,240
What Ward's research did was he produced a series of tests that made prediction of Down's syndrome during early pregnancy much more accurate.

122
00:12:49,870 --> 00:12:53,919
Now, you have to be careful with this one because you don't want to say, hey,

123
00:12:53,920 --> 00:13:00,490
we've had seen so many thousand more abortions because, you know, it's maybe people don't support that.

124
00:13:00,850 --> 00:13:09,040
So the way we framed this rhetorically was that these days, most babies with Down's syndrome are born out of choice.

125
00:13:09,280 --> 00:13:15,370
Either the mother decides not to have the test or having had the test, it comes out positive.

126
00:13:15,520 --> 00:13:21,780
She decides she would like to have the baby anyway, but she's had the choice or she's chosen to have a termination.

127
00:13:21,790 --> 00:13:22,450
So that's the.

128
00:13:22,600 --> 00:13:33,430
We framed it and we also looked up where I looked up which other countries used the tests that were developed at what was then my university.

129
00:13:34,180 --> 00:13:40,180
And of course, if they used in China, that means there's enormous reach because there's so many million people in China.

130
00:13:40,720 --> 00:13:46,540
So the sorts of things that we were looking at with these impact case studies were significant, some reach attribution.

131
00:13:46,540 --> 00:13:49,990
In other words, did this research cause this impact?

132
00:13:50,210 --> 00:13:55,030
So a lot of argument in this systematic review of how do you attribute with this one?

133
00:13:55,030 --> 00:14:01,689
It was easy because he was the only guy doing it, really. But with something like smoking cessation interventions, you could say, well, we did.

134
00:14:01,690 --> 00:14:06,099
We produced this. And then ten years later, fewer people were smoking.

135
00:14:06,100 --> 00:14:09,970
Was that because of the intervention you developed? Was it because of someone else's work?

136
00:14:10,330 --> 00:14:16,600
How much what proportion of the change can we attribute to your research and also timescale?

137
00:14:17,020 --> 00:14:24,250
So we had a two year timescale. You could have impact immediately, or it might take 20 years for the whole thing to get into policy.

138
00:14:25,540 --> 00:14:27,220
Okay. So that's the impact case of this.

139
00:14:27,400 --> 00:14:35,050
Oh, the second aspect of the impact case study was what they called the impact template, which is a stupid name, but it was just a future plans.

140
00:14:35,080 --> 00:14:39,510
What's your university doing to improve the impact?

141
00:14:39,520 --> 00:14:48,280
In other words, what kind of knowledge translation infrastructure have you got that will improve your research impact over the next 5 to 10 years?

142
00:14:48,460 --> 00:14:52,900
For example, well, for example, appointing a dean for impact, one would hope,

143
00:14:53,980 --> 00:15:03,630
would improve the chance that everybody else in the university would have it on their agenda decent amounts of money into communications,

144
00:15:03,640 --> 00:15:10,270
external linkages with industry, with policy makers, patient and public involvement, that kind of thing.

145
00:15:10,450 --> 00:15:20,710
So so there was a the trouble with these I did a analysed lots of them actually 30 or 40 of these impact templates for something else I'm doing.

146
00:15:21,340 --> 00:15:28,749
Everybody managed to score pretty much top marks on these because it was obviously the sort of thing you had to put in place.

147
00:15:28,750 --> 00:15:33,549
And so before they wrote the Impact Case Impact Template or the university said,

148
00:15:33,550 --> 00:15:36,790
well, we know we've got this, we've got staff training, we've got blah, blah.

149
00:15:37,450 --> 00:15:48,190
So they weren't very discriminatory. And this is a straw poll of the 23 impact case studies that I was involved in.

150
00:15:48,490 --> 00:15:53,469
And again, this might be quite interesting for those of you who are doing thinking about knowledge,

151
00:15:53,470 --> 00:16:01,560
translation is what kind of what kind of impacts does research have?

152
00:16:01,570 --> 00:16:09,880
So the ones that we produce, you can see this is just 23 that went in from from my medical school where I was working until the end of December.

153
00:16:10,330 --> 00:16:14,380
And you see the three big things are changing morbidity.

154
00:16:14,740 --> 00:16:25,480
In other words, really, I was very reluctant to let anything through that hadn't actually at least changed people's level of sickness, if not more.

155
00:16:25,600 --> 00:16:32,560
Actually, very few change mortality, getting into a guideline and getting into policy.

156
00:16:33,070 --> 00:16:45,670
If I look, I'm now analysed about 160 of these for a paper that I'm writing and actually guideline comes out enormously ahead of everything else.

157
00:16:45,760 --> 00:16:51,400
So, so of the things that was submitted in certainly health services, research, primary care, public health,

158
00:16:51,910 --> 00:16:57,760
the biggest impacts that people were claiming or the commonest impact people claiming was we got into a guideline,

159
00:16:58,330 --> 00:17:03,550
and I think that's a bit of an artefact of wanting something measurable, something crunchy.

160
00:17:03,820 --> 00:17:06,700
You know, very few people said, well, we changed the paradigm.

161
00:17:06,700 --> 00:17:11,109
We've change public attitudes because it's much harder to measure, whereas we change a guideline.

162
00:17:11,110 --> 00:17:22,509
And here is our bit on page 63. So those are the kinds of impacts and the mechanism of impact in,

163
00:17:22,510 --> 00:17:33,760
in my little sample of 23 and actually very similar across the largest sample of impact case studies the commonest and this this

164
00:17:33,760 --> 00:17:40,959
is actually quite key and hopefully will resonate with the stuff that Sharon and her team been teaching you is clinician poll,

165
00:17:40,960 --> 00:17:49,150
in other words, research that was itself informed by experiences at the clinical front line.

166
00:17:49,160 --> 00:17:52,420
So I'll give you an example. So all on their own in the public domain.

167
00:17:52,420 --> 00:17:56,020
Now, there was a guy at Queen Mary who is consultant,

168
00:17:56,020 --> 00:18:06,760
cardiologist and 20 years ago set up rapid access chest pain clinics and he locally set them up in his own hospital.

169
00:18:06,910 --> 00:18:11,319
They seem to work. The GP is light to them. Someone comes in, got chest pain, right.

170
00:18:11,320 --> 00:18:12,580
Does a clinic tomorrow if you get.

171
00:18:13,810 --> 00:18:22,240
And so he then rolled it out and introduced this and I can't remember the study design, but he then did some research on that.

172
00:18:22,840 --> 00:18:26,500
Bringing his fellow cardiologists in other hospitals on board.

173
00:18:26,860 --> 00:18:36,400
And guess what? Huge impact on the diagnosis of things like unstable angina and impact on mortality.

174
00:18:37,060 --> 00:18:43,270
Now, you could say that the research was never going to make it into the New England Journal of Medicine,

175
00:18:43,270 --> 00:18:47,079
because actually it was pretty, pretty basic techniques.

176
00:18:47,080 --> 00:18:49,990
It was relatively small samples, but the impact was huge.

177
00:18:50,290 --> 00:18:57,190
And now almost every hospital in this country still has a rapid access chest, chest pain clinic, etc., etc.

178
00:18:57,280 --> 00:18:59,800
So that's an example of clinician pull.

179
00:19:00,040 --> 00:19:08,230
The person doing the research was themselves the clinician who drove who did the research in order to improve his own clinical practice.

180
00:19:08,800 --> 00:19:12,190
Industry pull very obvious.

181
00:19:12,610 --> 00:19:16,300
It's contract research for industry. So we had a dental school.

182
00:19:16,450 --> 00:19:21,490
And guess what? Industry think it was boots paid one of our chance to develop these.

183
00:19:21,790 --> 00:19:24,940
I've still got a tube of it on my desk, actually, because he brought it along.

184
00:19:24,950 --> 00:19:30,840
It's a special tooth whitening toothpaste, and it's selling like hotcakes and made a lot of money for whoever paid for it.

185
00:19:31,420 --> 00:19:35,049
Policy pull contract research from the Department of Health.

186
00:19:35,050 --> 00:19:39,960
Again, very useful. Very, very good link.

187
00:19:39,970 --> 00:19:49,130
If the policy maker pays for the research and you get the answer they want, it's highly likely that that will then get into policy.

188
00:19:49,150 --> 00:19:52,479
Now, look at this example here, just his bottom line.

189
00:19:52,480 --> 00:20:00,010
There were no examples of studies that were funded by the Medical Research Council or the NIH or or indeed any

190
00:20:00,010 --> 00:20:08,589
other major funder that had impact by the researchers doing the research and then going and knocking on the door.

191
00:20:08,590 --> 00:20:13,120
The policy makers saying, would you like these findings? Because that doesn't happen.

192
00:20:14,620 --> 00:20:22,569
Co-production is things like Clark's multi-stakeholder collaborations, where you've got clinicians, researchers, possibly industry,

193
00:20:22,570 --> 00:20:32,920
possibly third sector, whatever, local charities and faith groups and, you know, getting together and often pulling money in from different sources.

194
00:20:33,190 --> 00:20:35,080
I think we're going to see a lot more of that.

195
00:20:35,500 --> 00:20:46,030
And then one curiosity driven woman who did a fantastic start just followed her own interest, put it up on the Internet as an Internet resource.

196
00:20:46,210 --> 00:20:54,160
Loads of people using it. So there is still space for curiosity driven research, but it's not very common.

197
00:20:54,670 --> 00:20:58,180
Much more common is this. It is sort of driven from the clinical front line.

198
00:20:59,680 --> 00:21:05,260
Now, I've said the ref didn't count academic impact, in other words, impact within universities.

199
00:21:05,890 --> 00:21:12,129
But the Research Council's UK does count academic impact as impact.

200
00:21:12,130 --> 00:21:18,910
So this is a terminology thing. I mean, of course we were the ref assessed academic work, but it didn't call it impacts.

201
00:21:19,720 --> 00:21:29,020
But you can see here this is MRC, SLC, all this global economic performance effect of public sector.

202
00:21:29,920 --> 00:21:40,870
The emphasis is on economic banks per book because actually Treasury needs to make sure that higher education is helping balance the books.

203
00:21:43,180 --> 00:21:46,870
You don't need to read all of that. So anyone's seen this before.

204
00:21:47,590 --> 00:21:55,419
This is the Pathways to Impact slide and this is the bit every time I looked at this, you know, for a couple of years, oh, this is just so awful.

205
00:21:55,420 --> 00:22:04,750
This is this is the worst kind of spider things. I haven't shown you the grim bit yet, but this is a beautiful drawing from research councils UK.

206
00:22:05,020 --> 00:22:12,100
This is what you've got to use to inform your pathways to impact submission and the green bid,

207
00:22:12,610 --> 00:22:16,570
economic and societal impacts of the impacts outside the university sector.

208
00:22:17,110 --> 00:22:21,910
So, you know, you can do anything you like, including enhancing cultural enrichment.

209
00:22:22,510 --> 00:22:26,799
It's very broad. Okay. Just about anything council's impact.

210
00:22:26,800 --> 00:22:37,959
If you if you can write a plausible enough narrative and again in Horizon 2020, you can ex-post impact is after you've done the research.

211
00:22:37,960 --> 00:22:43,210
But what they're really interested in is all these ex ante impacts.

212
00:22:43,900 --> 00:22:53,410
When you apply for the money, what have you got in place that makes it look like you are likely to have impact from your research later?

213
00:22:53,410 --> 00:22:59,290
So the sort of things track record of the researchers, have you got well constructed dissemination plans?

214
00:22:59,830 --> 00:23:03,969
Is your project embedded in existing stakeholder networks?

215
00:23:03,970 --> 00:23:11,050
This is absolutely key and I hope you've already learned this under the involvement of policymakers, which is kind of the same thing.

216
00:23:11,350 --> 00:23:15,370
What if I left off their knowledge to action people?

217
00:23:16,240 --> 00:23:20,170
But what if they left off understanding of the local context?

218
00:23:20,590 --> 00:23:25,790
Yeah. Actually, yes. So engagement with the local contact?

219
00:23:26,240 --> 00:23:32,600
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Totally agree. This was for I do some refereeing for the Canadian Health Service Research Foundation,

220
00:23:33,050 --> 00:23:40,220
all relevant decision makers, part of the research team as investigators or with a significant advisory role.

221
00:23:40,610 --> 00:23:49,969
So this is to try and shift you if there's anyone in the room who still feels that you do the research and then when you just finishing research,

222
00:23:49,970 --> 00:23:56,780
you start your dissemination and it doesn't work like that. It's got to be the other way round before you apply for the money.

223
00:23:57,020 --> 00:24:03,260
Build your networks, build your relationships, get people materials and get people hungry for what you're doing.

224
00:24:03,440 --> 00:24:07,850
But also, you will find that if you involve people at the beginning,

225
00:24:08,150 --> 00:24:16,580
they will give you feedback that will change your research questions in a positive direction to to make your findings a lot more applicable.

226
00:24:18,350 --> 00:24:22,730
Right. Put your hand in the air if you'd like that picture. No day.

227
00:24:22,790 --> 00:24:29,419
I don't like it either. This is the I can say this with great confidence because it's coming out in a systematic review.

228
00:24:29,420 --> 00:24:34,790
This is the most widely used framework for assessing research impacts.

229
00:24:35,690 --> 00:24:41,419
It informed the design of the impact case study and I'll make it easier for you all.

230
00:24:41,420 --> 00:24:44,420
It's saying I don't know why they wrote it in such small.

231
00:24:45,560 --> 00:24:55,310
It's just bad design. All it's saying is, first of all, before you do research, you need to prioritise what are the most important topics to research?

232
00:24:55,670 --> 00:25:02,360
And those you hear was, I think, the last lecture I gave. We had a case where there was a whole load of drugs that the patients were on,

233
00:25:02,360 --> 00:25:05,960
but actually someone put their hand up and said, Well, what about non-drug treatments?

234
00:25:06,260 --> 00:25:09,530
And that's actually quite a good example of frame shifting the frame.

235
00:25:09,800 --> 00:25:13,850
You know, hang on a minute. Are we prioritising the right kind of research?

236
00:25:14,120 --> 00:25:17,150
Then you do your research, then you publish it.

237
00:25:17,420 --> 00:25:20,690
At some point you implement the findings and then you get benefits.

238
00:25:21,140 --> 00:25:30,590
But there's these two rings which took me a long time to draw on PowerPoint, but you can see they're really key.

239
00:25:31,040 --> 00:25:42,410
The first red ring is the link between the funders of research, the people who are commissioning in this country the jaw, the amnesty, all that.

240
00:25:42,440 --> 00:25:49,040
How much dialogue are you having with the commissioners of research or the or the Department of Health, whatever?

241
00:25:49,730 --> 00:25:55,970
And then the second interface is the link between you, the person doing the research,

242
00:25:56,090 --> 00:26:00,380
and those guys out there who are not researchers who might want to implement your findings.

243
00:26:00,390 --> 00:26:07,220
So these two interfaces with people outside the academic world are absolutely key.

244
00:26:07,490 --> 00:26:11,090
The rest of this ghastly diagram is just sort of feedback loops.

245
00:26:11,090 --> 00:26:20,470
Of course, once you're implementing, you also want to feedback and influence the setting of the next set of priorities.

246
00:26:20,480 --> 00:26:24,320
So the idea is this is a very dynamic model.

247
00:26:24,320 --> 00:26:29,059
In fact, I don't like it nearly as much as Buxton and I like it.

248
00:26:29,060 --> 00:26:35,870
But you know, whatever I'm going to say and of course you've got the same these phrases significance,

249
00:26:35,870 --> 00:26:39,410
reach, attribution, the time scale actually came from the payback framework.

250
00:26:40,580 --> 00:26:48,410
It's a good framework. It's not a bad framework. It's just that I think it's got limitations because I think it's too linear.

251
00:26:48,680 --> 00:26:54,200
It's a dry. I'm actually Steve Hannah is a good friend and we're doing a systematic review together along with some other people.

252
00:26:54,920 --> 00:27:00,150
So what's the payback framework says is there's all these sorts of, you know,

253
00:27:00,170 --> 00:27:05,630
loads of different categories of impact, the same kind of thing, contributing to the knowledge base,

254
00:27:06,170 --> 00:27:15,620
inspiring future research, including training new researchers, developing policy on products, improving health and broader economic benefits.

255
00:27:16,190 --> 00:27:20,180
You know, the welfare bill, if we get if we treat low back pain properly,

256
00:27:20,300 --> 00:27:23,630
people will have fewer sick days, therefore blah, blah, blah, that kind of thing.

257
00:27:24,290 --> 00:27:30,500
Okay, so that's payback as anyone ever tried to fill this in research fish.

258
00:27:31,400 --> 00:27:37,850
Okay, if you hold a grant or if you've ever held a grant as principal investigator,

259
00:27:38,300 --> 00:27:44,000
you get an email once a year for about ten years after you've held that grant.

260
00:27:44,240 --> 00:27:51,080
And you have to then fill in, you can see engagement activities, influence on policy.

261
00:27:51,080 --> 00:27:55,970
So it's based on the payback frame. And the idea is you just sort of send the principal investigator an email.

262
00:27:56,330 --> 00:28:00,770
Have you given any more talks about it or have you have you have you changed any

263
00:28:00,770 --> 00:28:04,610
more guidelines or have any of your staff gone on to get a job somewhere else?

264
00:28:05,060 --> 00:28:10,280
It's a complete nightmare because I get 24 of these every year and then I have to work out with,

265
00:28:10,760 --> 00:28:14,600
is this lecture linked to any previous grant that I've held?

266
00:28:15,080 --> 00:28:19,340
It drives me nuts. So you tend not to fit in properly.

267
00:28:19,340 --> 00:28:22,040
And then the question is if it's garbage in, garbage out, but.

268
00:28:22,290 --> 00:28:32,760
Sadly, this is what is going to be used to produce big data on the impact of research produced in UK higher education.

269
00:28:34,570 --> 00:28:40,350
Oh, let's go away from that. Let's come back to what it was all like before it became policy.

270
00:28:41,460 --> 00:28:46,880
So who's are? Buy a drink, if you can tell.

271
00:28:47,030 --> 00:28:50,510
Paul Erlich doing his microbiology research.

272
00:28:50,540 --> 00:28:54,920
The idea is the evidence pipeline.

273
00:28:55,820 --> 00:29:03,170
The assumed evidence pipeline is you have laboratory research, such clever chaps like this doing their research and making a discovery.

274
00:29:03,170 --> 00:29:07,400
And then you have the public health people and you know the clinicians,

275
00:29:07,470 --> 00:29:16,670
GP's like me turning those discoveries into applied health and this is sort of downstream applied implementation.

276
00:29:16,970 --> 00:29:24,330
And anybody who sits on any committees in the university knows that this stuff is much more prestigious.

277
00:29:24,400 --> 00:29:29,570
You know, this is actually now it's sort of genomics and lab stuff, wet science and then this stuff.

278
00:29:30,200 --> 00:29:34,880
Some people don't even count as research. But the idea is that there's a pipeline.

279
00:29:37,010 --> 00:29:38,330
You guys know this.

280
00:29:38,660 --> 00:29:47,180
I think the message to the practitioner in prison and community organisation and Sharon saying you've got to get to know your local context.

281
00:29:47,420 --> 00:29:49,790
Does that does that resonate with the sort of things you're being told?

282
00:29:49,820 --> 00:29:56,570
I mean, I know you're learning in a lot more detail, but that's broadly speaking, the science of knowledge translation.

283
00:29:57,800 --> 00:30:06,410
There's a problem with it, and this is why I'm worried about the payback framework research, fashion and RAF and all the rest of it.

284
00:30:08,060 --> 00:30:12,709
Abraham Flexner You read that science like the Mississippi.

285
00:30:12,710 --> 00:30:21,950
That's not the Mississippi. By the way, in case any Americans want to comment, science like Mississippi begins in a tiny review in a distant forest.

286
00:30:22,280 --> 00:30:28,240
Gradually, other streams swell its volume, and the roaring river that bursts the [INAUDIBLE] is formed from countless sources.

287
00:30:28,250 --> 00:30:36,650
In other words, it simply is not the case in science that my little piece of research here goes dumb, dumb and has impact down the line.

288
00:30:37,010 --> 00:30:45,590
Science is messier, it's more complex, and the stuff that I do is influenced by the stuff that other people have done, etc., etc.

289
00:30:45,950 --> 00:30:54,740
Now really, everyone would agree with that. But the question is to what extent does that invalidate these linear models of research into practice?

290
00:30:55,010 --> 00:31:00,770
And my view, I guess, because I work in social sciences, is that this is really important.

291
00:31:02,750 --> 00:31:09,020
Okay. Here's why I'm going to talk you through this.

292
00:31:09,320 --> 00:31:16,370
Start off in the top left hand corner. You apply for a grant to do a pilot study just on a few patients, blah, blah, blah.

293
00:31:17,330 --> 00:31:23,600
And then you say if the pilot is successful, then going to do a much bigger study, anticipate a study too.

294
00:31:23,600 --> 00:31:25,430
But somehow that doesn't happen.

295
00:31:25,640 --> 00:31:33,890
And so the impact that you put in your pathways to impacts application isn't ever going to happen because Study two didn't have it.

296
00:31:33,920 --> 00:31:41,360
What happened was you thought about it. You went to a conference, you met another team, you exchange ideas, you produced a new collaboration,

297
00:31:41,360 --> 00:31:47,419
you did all sorts of different things, but then finally you had some impact down here.

298
00:31:47,420 --> 00:31:51,770
And so when you write your recount of the impact, of course it's linear.

299
00:31:51,770 --> 00:31:56,930
Of course you can trace it back, but you then leave out all the meanderings.

300
00:31:57,590 --> 00:32:02,540
And so you get this account which appears a lot more linear than it actually is,

301
00:32:02,540 --> 00:32:08,209
which is why I think the impact case study can only be written retrospectively.

302
00:32:08,210 --> 00:32:15,590
And when you've written it, it makes the impact seem linear, which is why the the ref,

303
00:32:15,830 --> 00:32:21,080
when we wrote up the report on the ref, we said was a fantastic success because we've got these lovely stories.

304
00:32:22,190 --> 00:32:33,650
I firmly believe that patient and clinician input right at the beginning of study one would actually reduce wasted effort in the research process.

305
00:32:33,800 --> 00:32:38,959
And that is why knowing your local context, engaging local clinicians,

306
00:32:38,960 --> 00:32:46,130
engaging patient organisations is so important because they will stop this kind of thing or they won't stop it, but they'll reduce it.

307
00:32:46,130 --> 00:32:55,280
And there's quite a lot of evidence that that is the case. Remember that basic applied development technology.

308
00:32:55,910 --> 00:32:59,750
It just doesn't happen like that. Fees are ubiquitous.

309
00:32:59,750 --> 00:33:06,080
If you put research impact pipeline something into Google images, you get loads of these and it doesn't happen.

310
00:33:06,800 --> 00:33:15,090
I'm much more interested in this. Who knows about mode to knowledge production that you must know about is shown in full.

311
00:33:15,680 --> 00:33:21,920
Okay. Have you is it on the syllabus for this module by this name?

312
00:33:22,180 --> 00:33:25,879
Okay. Look how good.

313
00:33:25,880 --> 00:33:30,800
What name was president of the European Research Council in a very important woman.

314
00:33:31,610 --> 00:33:36,860
But this was her stuff sort of years ago. She's a social scientist and she studies scientists.

315
00:33:38,750 --> 00:33:42,770
Michael Gibbons these are all what you call critical social scientists.

316
00:33:42,770 --> 00:33:46,809
And what they said was. Forget the study of knowledge.

317
00:33:46,810 --> 00:33:51,640
Translation is a hiding to nothing. It just isn't going to work.

318
00:33:52,270 --> 00:33:56,739
Let's study knowledge production. So stop studying.

319
00:33:56,740 --> 00:34:03,160
Here is this thing called a set of research findings, and let's now study how knowledge gets produced.

320
00:34:03,970 --> 00:34:13,360
So Mode one is the traditional university based research that then goes down the pipeline mode to much more interesting.

321
00:34:13,360 --> 00:34:22,839
It's collaborative, it's transdisciplinary not just because it links medicine, social science, everything else, but because it links sectors.

322
00:34:22,840 --> 00:34:31,080
It links clinicians with researchers, with policy makers, with industry, and it's often quite pragmatic.

323
00:34:31,090 --> 00:34:34,479
So MOTU is quite a good model.

324
00:34:34,480 --> 00:34:43,059
What they say is MOTU is actually how a lot of knowledge gets produced in this society and a lot of professors will come along and say,

325
00:34:43,060 --> 00:34:49,360
well MOTU is obviously kind of some lesser kind of knowledge because Mode one is the really robust, rigorous objective stuff.

326
00:34:49,360 --> 00:34:52,120
Well, that may be the case, but maybe it is going to have more impact.

327
00:34:52,660 --> 00:35:00,970
Now, Carole Weiss was a social scientist who studied the impact of social science on policy,

328
00:35:02,200 --> 00:35:07,509
and she developed this taxonomy of seven different types of research impact.

329
00:35:07,510 --> 00:35:13,270
So the first is knowledge driven, where you go along to the policymakers.

330
00:35:13,420 --> 00:35:17,200
Here's my research and they say, what a brilliant paper. We must immediately implement that.

331
00:35:17,740 --> 00:35:23,800
And she demonstrated that this is very rare. If ever that happens, don't even think about doing that.

332
00:35:24,730 --> 00:35:31,180
The next one was policy. Pull the problem solving the policymakers come to you said we've got this problem.

333
00:35:31,420 --> 00:35:35,080
What are going to do about the obesity epidemic, what we can do about alcohol, whatever it might be.

334
00:35:36,190 --> 00:35:39,879
They commission you to do a piece of research that's also incredibly rare.

335
00:35:39,880 --> 00:35:43,660
And I'm going to tell you a little bit in a minute about the Rothschild experiment.

336
00:35:45,070 --> 00:35:55,220
Much commoner is this interactive mode where if you make friends with your policymakers locally or nationally, have long chats with them.

337
00:35:55,330 --> 00:35:58,120
You know, it's one of the kings from all those breakfast meetings.

338
00:35:59,500 --> 00:36:05,230
And actually, whenever someone asks me to go and sit on a go to appear on a committee,

339
00:36:05,440 --> 00:36:10,780
I say yes, because actually that is the only way anyone's ever going to take notice of my work.

340
00:36:11,080 --> 00:36:15,190
So you sort of muddle through to a decision.

341
00:36:15,340 --> 00:36:19,780
It's not that they actually invite you to bring your research. It's not so much subtler than that.

342
00:36:19,960 --> 00:36:25,210
But the idea is you've got to have interaction. You've got to get to know each other, get to know where the other side is coming from.

343
00:36:27,460 --> 00:36:37,420
Enlightenment, if you interact often enough, intensively enough with the policymakers and senior clinicians,

344
00:36:37,420 --> 00:36:43,000
whoever, they will start to take on board some of the arguments.

345
00:36:44,080 --> 00:36:48,010
It's not that you go in there and you say, By the way, I've got this randomised controlled trial,

346
00:36:48,010 --> 00:36:51,850
it didn't work like that, but maybe after you got to know them,

347
00:36:52,060 --> 00:36:58,540
after three or four years the policymakers will start to think it'll be a good idea to see if there's any randomised trials.

348
00:36:58,780 --> 00:37:04,060
Do you see. Because they didn't, they weren't up to that before. And then you've got these two political,

349
00:37:04,300 --> 00:37:10,510
political instrumental is when they know what they're going to do and they just look around for some research that

350
00:37:10,510 --> 00:37:17,889
supports that and political tactical is when they commissioned you to do a study not because they want your findings,

351
00:37:17,890 --> 00:37:19,750
but because they want to delay something else.

352
00:37:20,320 --> 00:37:28,850
And finally, research as a public good, they're going to give you money to do research just because it's a really good thing to do it.

353
00:37:29,500 --> 00:37:34,510
And the critics say that that's increasingly rare in the current climate.

354
00:37:35,770 --> 00:37:45,760
I could tell you briefly about Rothschild, some amazing book written by Cogan and Henkel, and it's more than 30 years, but 35 years ago now.

355
00:37:46,240 --> 00:37:50,470
So what Rothschild did, he's very rational guy, Victor Rothschild.

356
00:37:50,800 --> 00:37:54,490
And he he he described it as thinking the unthinkable.

357
00:37:55,450 --> 00:38:01,390
He said that a quarter of the Medical Research Council budget should just be allocated to the government,

358
00:38:01,900 --> 00:38:07,810
and the government would commission university academics to do the research that the government needed.

359
00:38:07,990 --> 00:38:13,810
You can imagine what the MRC thought. You can imagine what the scientists thought had going about academic freedom and all the rest of it.

360
00:38:14,560 --> 00:38:21,010
But surely from a knowledge translation point of view, wouldn't this have been perfect that, you know, the government would say,

361
00:38:21,010 --> 00:38:28,990
well, these are the big problems we've got to solve, and then the scientists would be a contractor to the government.

362
00:38:29,380 --> 00:38:35,200
So they then introduced this and it went so badly wrong.

363
00:38:35,260 --> 00:38:41,620
It's just the best book about how government science relations just went totally belly up.

364
00:38:43,030 --> 00:38:46,440
They interacted. And if you've ever had Pauling,

365
00:38:46,460 --> 00:38:54,710
I know this one person instrument spent a long time on government and she's going to put her hand up if they're two cultures are two different worlds.

366
00:38:55,340 --> 00:39:01,249
It was not easy to prioritise research topics. The research commissioning cycle happens in years.

367
00:39:01,250 --> 00:39:04,010
The policy cycle happens in days, weeks or months.

368
00:39:04,730 --> 00:39:10,070
So when when they finally produce the results, the policy makers are saying, Well, we're not interested in any more.

369
00:39:10,070 --> 00:39:15,290
We're on something else. And then when science did influence policy, because it did,

370
00:39:15,680 --> 00:39:19,669
it kind of happened a bit more obliquely through the sort of interpersonal relationships

371
00:39:19,670 --> 00:39:23,060
that had been built and not directly through the research that had been done.

372
00:39:23,540 --> 00:39:28,790
So this is really important, some important failed experiment.

373
00:39:30,320 --> 00:39:33,350
Fast forward to last year or the year before last.

374
00:39:33,500 --> 00:39:44,040
This is the new stuff. Okay. This is but you can sort of see where insights from the failed Rothschild experiment have influence now.

375
00:39:45,320 --> 00:39:51,110
I'm going to talk you through this because what you've got here is the development of a research idea,

376
00:39:51,560 --> 00:39:55,190
the production of knowledge, in other words, the doing of the research.

377
00:39:55,370 --> 00:39:59,870
And then you've got your implementation here. So it's still a linear model.

378
00:40:01,220 --> 00:40:06,709
But this is using something called Active Network Theory so that it's really

379
00:40:06,710 --> 00:40:14,420
important to think about the system as a network of interlinked stakeholders.

380
00:40:14,870 --> 00:40:20,780
And also to think about this, what they're calling an active scenario,

381
00:40:21,230 --> 00:40:29,000
actor scenario is a sort of like a a thing someone does, you know, like I'm a GP, so I'll go along and I'll see patients.

382
00:40:29,000 --> 00:40:35,780
Yeah, that's an active scenario. Maybe they want to change that actor scenario, for example.

383
00:40:35,780 --> 00:40:41,300
They want the GP to, I don't know, go out and do public health or something like that.

384
00:40:42,920 --> 00:40:49,010
So what you've got here is the investigators, which are the researchers and linked actors,

385
00:40:49,310 --> 00:40:56,480
and then you have what Jack Sparkman calls productive interactions.

386
00:40:57,530 --> 00:41:00,560
It's all it's not linear. It's all non-linear.

387
00:41:00,920 --> 00:41:10,280
But at some point, you get some knowledge products and you evolve the actor scenario as a result of the productive interactions.

388
00:41:10,280 --> 00:41:16,880
So it would be good for someone to make this into a dynamic little film and show some of them, like into a cartoon.

389
00:41:17,120 --> 00:41:24,620
And then, of course, this extends through into actors that were never linked at the beginning.

390
00:41:24,950 --> 00:41:31,490
So this is the way it's the way the thinking on research impact is moving.

391
00:41:31,730 --> 00:41:35,059
The trouble is that this is being published in especially social science.

392
00:41:35,060 --> 00:41:38,120
Generally, though, I think it's got a huge amount of theoretical resonance.

393
00:41:39,350 --> 00:41:45,410
It's opaque to most people who are still stuck in that linear mode and actually quite like the payback framework.

394
00:41:45,960 --> 00:41:48,320
Alright, so how do you maximise impact?

395
00:41:48,860 --> 00:41:57,860
Well, number one, you've got to make it a strategic priority, not just for you as a researcher, but for the organisation that's employing you,

396
00:41:58,460 --> 00:42:06,800
developing partnerships and networks as well as your your infrastructure, but also to take an ex ante approach.

397
00:42:07,430 --> 00:42:13,250
In other words, before you start doing the research. Think about the relationship building, the network building you've got to do.

398
00:42:14,540 --> 00:42:16,219
Secondly, sorry about my numbering.

399
00:42:16,220 --> 00:42:26,060
It doesn't seem to come through well to supplement what might be called high church research with clinically led studies from clinical academics.

400
00:42:26,390 --> 00:42:35,330
Contract research. If you get the contract right, that's, I think perfectly fine co-produced research and curiosity driven work.

401
00:42:35,630 --> 00:42:40,070
So yeah. So right. Have your your very clever MRC funded study.

402
00:42:40,070 --> 00:42:45,620
But actually that may be less likely to be its impact than some of these messier forms in

403
00:42:45,620 --> 00:42:51,500
which the researchers are already on the ground in the down and dirty with non researchers.

404
00:42:52,730 --> 00:42:59,060
Just a brief note about the critique of the whole impact agenda.

405
00:42:59,300 --> 00:43:11,150
There is an argument that impact itself is a neoliberal conspiracy, that the very terms useful and impactful are ideological constructs,

406
00:43:11,630 --> 00:43:20,720
and they're produced by a particular set of politically powerful people who, for example, are very keen on the term knowledge economy.

407
00:43:20,960 --> 00:43:24,890
Why do we have to link health and wealth? I mean, good example of this.

408
00:43:24,920 --> 00:43:31,790
I mean, it's two examples, but one of them is Mark Lamont's worse work in the field of critical management studies.

409
00:43:31,790 --> 00:43:40,370
And he says as the impact agenda has got going, more and more studies are around corporate finance in business schools.

410
00:43:40,520 --> 00:43:43,940
Fewer and fewer studies are about, for example, hidden power that.

411
00:43:44,340 --> 00:43:50,850
Which kind of thing he studies. So he's pretty cross about that. But also this paper that we published in the BMJ last year,

412
00:43:51,390 --> 00:43:56,550
we actually had a section in that about how evidence based medicine had become appropriated

413
00:43:56,820 --> 00:44:02,970
by drug company interests who were now describing their studies as evidence based.

414
00:44:03,120 --> 00:44:14,399
So this kind of stuff means that there is a sort of insidious element to this very trendy impact agenda that some

415
00:44:14,400 --> 00:44:26,050
lovely alternative stuff in the literature all about the ethics and the value of higher education and research,

416
00:44:26,070 --> 00:44:33,240
you know, research as a public good. Someone's proposed a People's Research Council on the Medical or Economic Research Council.

417
00:44:35,730 --> 00:44:41,790
And asking from a much more explicitly ethical perspective what kind of science do we want?

418
00:44:41,790 --> 00:44:48,220
What kind of science is morally worthwhile if we suspend our focus on these short term returns on investment?

419
00:44:48,240 --> 00:44:53,220
Can we measure whether you got into a guideline or whether the people's blood pressure changed?

420
00:44:53,460 --> 00:45:00,000
If we commit to science in a less competitive way, maybe will have more impact in the future.

421
00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:01,290
But it'll actually be so.

422
00:45:01,290 --> 00:45:07,290
It'll be hard to measure, but it'll be impossible to measure because what we're looking at here is the stuff that is very difficult to measure.

423
00:45:07,980 --> 00:45:17,580
So let me summarise briefly, the definition of impact depends very much on your perspective, on your terms of reference.

424
00:45:19,170 --> 00:45:23,700
Mostly the reason why we're all excited about research impact is this pressure,

425
00:45:23,700 --> 00:45:32,909
particularly from government and on government to show return on investment within the ref impact was very broadly defined.

426
00:45:32,910 --> 00:45:36,350
It was used a case study approach. I put results of which the results are out now.

427
00:45:36,360 --> 00:45:39,660
Beg your pardon? Should have and know people did well.

428
00:45:40,710 --> 00:45:45,720
Funders very interested in pathways to impact the ex-ante approach.

429
00:45:46,260 --> 00:45:52,470
I've given you a little bit of a flavour on theories. For example, Carol Weiss is seven mechanisms of impact.

430
00:45:54,000 --> 00:46:02,010
I've given you some evidence from Rothschild that the assumed linear link between evidence and policy doesn't happen.

431
00:46:02,580 --> 00:46:07,620
I've offered you some new framings of impact based on networked models,

432
00:46:08,310 --> 00:46:12,750
and I've given you very briefly a critique of impact of the neoliberal conspiracy.

433
00:46:12,750 --> 00:46:18,990
That's a lot to pack into one talk, and we still have 12 minutes for you to ask questions or disagree with me.