Academics today are using a range of platforms, such as social media, to spread the word about their research, but research from the University of Cambridge shows that these efforts are seldom covered by official impact assessments.
The researchers examined over 200 examples of academics discussing their research on social media and argues that the measure of impact in the Research Excellence Framework (REF) needs to update to take account of this level of social networking.
Measuring impact
The REF scores are designed to measure the quality of university research in the UK and plays a big role in determining the distribution of research funding. They require university departments to demonstrate the impact their work has and how it has benefited society.
While the researchers support this endeavor, they believe that engagement on social media is not adequately included in the measures. They argue that while the REF looks at how research is received by the public, it fails to adequately cover engagement with the public during the production of the research itself, which can mean that important feedback and collaboration is missed.
“The official language presents impact as a top-down, outward flow from universities to a waiting public, but this is an outdated characterization—if it was ever valid at all,” the researchers explain. “Ask researchers about their most impactful interactions on social media, and you’ll get a much wider range of examples than the REF covers.”
Moving with the times
The researchers believe that it is time for the REF to move with the times and rethink how demonstrating the value of universities to society is measured. Currently, the REF measures impact via both reach and significance. What’s more, its advice on public engagement can be confusing, as it can be both encouraged and discouraged. For instance, it is encouraged when the public engages with research, but not when researchers engage with the public.
After surveying over 100 researchers from 15 countries, the researchers discovered that fewer than half of submissions related to instances whereby research was pushed out towards the public as finished products, which is how REF assumes engagement occurs. Around half of respondents said that two-way exchanges were equally valuable, such as testing out research ideas or crowdsourcing data.
These discussions often resulted in further engagement, such as participating in panel discussions, running training sessions, or giving a public lecture. What’s more, these engagements didn’t always relate specifically to the research that may have stimulated the discussion in the first place.
The researchers argue that social media is blurring the line between impact and public engagement as it allows information to flow into academic projects and helps to generate both formal and informal opportunities that aren’t tracked by the REF.
“One solution may be to amend the assessment so that it asks universities not just to provide evidence of research outcomes, but to explain the research process across a project’s lifetime,” the authors conclude. “This isn’t a call for yet more ambiguity about what impact is, but for more open-mindedness about what researchers achieve. In an increasingly complex, socially-networked culture, this would help to ensure that the broader effects of their work are not forgotten.”
