ascilite2015

frameworks do not capture the more subtle and less tangible real-world impact that arises during the
research activity, and which has perceptive, and therefore, interpretive experiential influences. In this
sense, research impact is also created during collaboration and communication processes external to
the research environment, and similarly brings interpretive qualities to such processes.
Impact can also give rise to the intention of ‘making a difference’ (Chandler, 2014, p. 2). The
researchers in this study were committed to making a difference, yet grappled with articulating the
real-world impact of research beyond scholarly influences. Assessing impact extends beyond
measuring ‘what can be measured’ to measuring ‘what should be measured’ (Wells & Whitworth,
2007, p. 1) and is an inherent complexity of impact assessment activities.
Conclusion
The Higher Education sector is under increasing pressure to demonstrate value to society (de Jong,
Barker, Cox, Sveinsdottir, & Van den Besselaar, 2014) yet it is difficult to demonstrate value when
there is no accepted framework for measuring real-world impact (Bornmann, 2012). More research is
needed to understand research impact and clarify impact terminology that is inconsistent and
confusing (Penfield et al., 2013). Assessing impact is feasible but current methods need to be
improved (Ovseiko, Oancea, & Buchan, 2012). Understanding how impact manifests through action,
awareness and accountability is an essential first step in re-conceptualising research impact.
References
Armstrong, K., & Kendall, E. (2010). Translating knowledge into practice and policy: the role of
knowledge networks in primary health care. Health Information Management Journal, 39(2), 9.
Australian Research Council. (2014). Research impact principles and framework. Retrieved 27 June
2014, 2014, from http://www.arc.gov.au/general/impact.htm
Baehr, M. (2005). Distinctions between assessment and evaluation. Program Assessment Handbook,
7.
Balakas, K., & Sparks, L. (2010). Teaching research and evidence-based practice using a servicelearning
approach. The Journal of nursing education, 49(12), 691-695.
Bastow, S., Dunleavy, P., & Tinkler, J. (2014). The impact of the social sciences: how academics and
their research make a difference: SAGE.
Bauerlein, M., Gad-el-Hak, M., Grody, W., McKelvey, B., & Trimble, S. W. (2010, 13 June). We must
stop the avalanche of low-quality research, The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
from http://chronicle.com/article/We-Must-Stop-the-Avalanche-of/65890/
Bornmann, L. (2012). Measuring the societal impact of research: research is less and less assessed
on scientific impact alone - we should aim to quantify the increasingly important contributions of
science to society. EMBO Rep, 13(8), 673-676. doi: 10.1038/embor.2012.99
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. New Jersey: The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bromley, T., & De Campos, A. (2014). How can impact evaluation be planned? In P. Denicolo (Ed.),
Achieving impact in research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Butler, D. (2008, 11 June 2008). Translational research: crossing the valley of death. Retrieved 30
September 2014, from http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080611/full/453840a.html
Campbell, H. (2012). Lots of words… but do any of them matter? The challenge of engaged
scholarship. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(3), 349-353.
Chandler, C. (2014). What is the meaning of impact in relation to research and why does it matter? A
view from inside academia. In P. Denicolo (Ed.), Achieving impact in research. London, UK: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Chubb, J. (2014). How does the impact agenda fit with attitudes and ethics that motivate research? In
P. Denicolo (Ed.), Achieving impact in research. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd.
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
Diprose, R., & Reynolds, J. (2014). Merleau-Ponty: key concepts: Routledge.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new
production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies: Sage.
432
CP:80