Reconceptualising research impact: reflections on the real-world impact of research in an Australian context

References

• ACIL Allen Consulting. (2015). Collaborative research networks mid term programme evaluation report to the Department of Education and Training. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/node/42056.
   Google Scholar
• ARC. (2014). ERA 2015: Submission guidelines. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
   Google Scholar
• ARC. (2016a). ARC facts: Discovery projects. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.policyforum.net/ideas-boom-or-innovation-bust/.
   Google Scholar
• ARC. (2016b). Glossary of terms for research impact. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.arc.gov.au/research-impact-principles-and-framework#glossary.
   Google Scholar
• ARC. (2016c). Selection report: Linkage projects 2016. Retrieved from http://www.arc.gov.au/selection-report-linkage-projects-2016.
   Google Scholar
• ARC. (2017a). EI 2018 framework.
   Google Scholar
• ARC. (2017b). Engagement and impact assessment pilot 2017 report.
   Google Scholar
• ARC. (2017c, November 10). Selection report: Discovery projects 2018. Retrieved from http://www.arc.gov.au/selection-report-discovery-projects-2018%20
   Google Scholar
• ARC. (2017d, May 31). Selection report: Linkage projects 2016 (proposals from 1 July–22 December 2016). Retrieved from http://www.arc.gov.au/selection-report-linkage-projects-2016-Round2
   Google Scholar
• Australian Government. (2013). Assessing the wider benefits arising from university-based research: Discussion paper. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, S. J. (2012). Performativity, commodification and commitment: An I-spy guide to the neoliberal university. British Journal of Educational Studies, 60(1), 17–28. doi: 10.1080/00071005.2011.650940
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bohle, P., Quinlan, M., Kennedy, D., & Williamson, A. (2004). Working hours, work-life conflict and health in precarious and ‘permanent’ employment. Revista de Saúde Pública, 38, 19–25. doi: 10.1590/S0034-89102004000700004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadogan, J. (2014). Curiosity-driven ‘blue sky’ research: A threatened vital activity? Cardiff: The Learned Society of Wales.
   Google Scholar
• Cruz, R. S., Kyte, D., Aiyegbusi, O., Keeley, T., & Calvert, M. (2017). Assessing the impact of healthcare research: A systematic review of methodological frameworks. PLoS Medicine, 14(8), e1002370. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuthill, M. (2012). A ‘civic mission’ for the university. In L. McIlraith, A. Lyons, & R. Munck (Eds.), Higher education and civic engagement: Comparative perspectives (pp. 81–99). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, H., & Nutley, S. (2008). Learning more about how research-based knowledge gets used: Guidance in the development of new empirical research. New York, NY: William T Grant Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• de Jong, S., Barker, K., Cox, D., Sveinsdottir, T., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2014). Understanding societal impact through productive interactions: ICT research as a case. Research Evaluation, 23(2), 89–102. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvu001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Industry Innovation and Science. (2016). Science and research priorities. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.science.gov.au/scienceGov/ScienceAndResearchPriorities/Pages/default.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Dill, D. D. (2012). Assuring the public good in higher education: Essential framework conditions and academic values. Paper presented at the SRHE Higher Education Theory Group Seminar, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Donovan, C. (2008). The Australian research quality framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. New Directions for Evaluation, 2008(118), 47–60. doi: 10.1002/ev.260
   Google Scholar
• Enslin, M. (2013, November 29). What's up in South African journals publishing? Retrieved from http://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/?p=5141
   Google Scholar
• Eynon, R. (2012). The challenges and possibilities of the impact agenda. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(1), 1–3. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2012.636367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grantham, B., & Miller, T. (2010). The end of neoliberalism. Popular Communication, 8(3), 174–177. doi: 10.1080/15405702.2010.493433
   Google Scholar
• Group of Eight Australia. (2014). Group of Eight submission to the inquiry into Australia's innovation system. Retrieved from Senate Standing Committee on Economics: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Innovation_System/Submissions.
   Google Scholar
• Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Making an impact: New directions for arts and humanities research. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14(1), 25–44. doi: 10.1177/1474022214533891
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2010). The practice of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2014). REF 2014: Key facts.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, U., & McNicoll, I. (2011). Through a glass, darkly: Measuring the social value of universities. Bristol: National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement.
   Google Scholar
• Kuruvilla, S., Mays, N., Pleasant, A., & Walt, G. (2006). Describing the impact of health research: A research impact framework. BMC Health Services Research, 6(134), 1–18. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-134
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lamp, J. (2012). ERA: Eggs and baskets. Advocate: Newsletter of the National Tertiary Education Union, 19(3), 20–21. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=065776944556322;res=IELBUS.
   Google Scholar
• Marjanovic, S., Hanney, S., & Wooding, S. (2009). A historical reflection on research evaluation studies, their recurrent themes and challenges. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, B. R. (2011). The research excellence framework and the ‘impact agenda’: Are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation, 20(3), 247–254. doi:10.3152/095820211×13118583635693 doi: 10.3152/095820211X13118583635693
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, G., Song, X., & Jayasuriya, K. (2017). The proletarianisation of academic labour in Australia. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(5), 1017–1030. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1263936
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCormack, B. (2011). Engaged scholarship and research impact: Integrating the doing and using of research in practice. Journal of Research in Nursing, 16(2), 111–127. doi: 10.1177/1744987110393419
   Google Scholar
• McKenna, H. P. (2015). Research assessment: The impact of impact. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 52(1), 1–3. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.11.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NHMRC. (2014). Apply for funding. Retrieved from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants-funding/apply-funding.
   Google Scholar
• Office of the Chief Scientist. (2012). Setting strategic research priorities.
   Google Scholar
• Olssen, M. (2016). Neoliberal competition in higher education today: Research, accountability and impact. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(1), 129–148. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2015.1100530
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ragupathy, R., Tordoff, J., Norris, P., & Reith, D. (2012). Key informants’ perceptions of how pharmac operates in New Zealand. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 28(04), 367–373. doi: 10.1017/S0266462312000566
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reich, E. S. (2013). Science publishing: The golden club. Nature, 502(7471), 291–293. doi: 10.1038/502291a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, J., Larkin, M., & Flowers, P. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Spaapen, J., van Drooge, L., Propp, T., van der Meulen, B., Shinn, T., & Marcovich, A. (2011). Social impact assessment methods for research and funding instruments through the study of productive interactions (SIAMPI): Final report on social impacts of research. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Sumner, A., Crichton, J., Theobald, S., Zulu, E., & Parkhurst, J. (2011). What shapes research impact on policy? Understanding research uptake in sexual and reproductive health policy processes in resource poor contexts. Health Research Policy and Systems, 9(Suppl 1), S3. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-9-S1-S3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thornton, M. (2017). Introduction: The retreat from the critical. In M. Thornton (Ed.), Through a glass darkly: The social sciences look at the neoliberal university. Canberra: ANU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Titchen, A., & Hobson, D. (2005). Phenomenology. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 114–120). Delhi: Vistaar.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, D. (2016, May 26). Communicating impact: The role of news and media – reflections on reaching non-academic audiences. Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/05/26/communicating-impact-the-role-of-news-and-media/
   Google Scholar
• Watt, I. (2015). Report of the review of research policy and funding arrangements.
   Google Scholar