Abstract
AbstractThe allocation of research funding can benefit greatly from robust analysis of what has worked in research. In turn, these analyses can help advocacy initiatives and demonstrate accountability to taxpayers and donors. Capturing and mapping data on the inputs, processes, outputs, outcome and impact of research is crucial for these analyses. In this article we argue that the research community as a whole—including funders, researchers and administrators—is potentially in a position where it can assess or evaluate research not just according to academic outputs (production of knowledge), but also its outcomes and/or impact (effects on society). Using an exploratory framework that assesses effectiveness, efficiency and equity (3e’s) of research and research assessment both in terms of academic outputs and non-academic impact, we also argue that most assessments are primarily examining the effectiveness of research, as tools are not yet available to systematically assess research for its efficiency and equity. This article is published as part of a special issue on the future of research assessment.
Highlights
The allocation of research funding can benefit greatly from robust analysis of what has worked in research
In 2014 the UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) published the third UK-wide analysis of public and charity funded health relevant research since 2004, for which it used the Health Research Classification System (HRCS) to categorize projects corresponding to £3bn of spend in 2014. (UK Clinical Research Collaboration, 2015) The UKCRC report was helpful in demonstrating, for example, that half of all funding is concentrated in “basic research” this proportion to other research has decreased over the ten-year reporting period
Applying the 3e’s to research impact assessment we explore these 3e’s further and demonstrate that the research community as a whole, including funders, researchers and administrators, is potentially in a position where it can assess or evaluate research not just according to academic outputs, and its outcomes and/or impact
Summary
Deciding on the appropriate distribution and allocation of research funding in any sector is no easy task. We describe how as a research community (funders, administrators, researchers and beneficiaries) we are beginning to create more systematic ways of capturing inputs, and tracking these to the wider outcomes and impact of research; but propose that there is still a long way to go The methods used within these tools include the use of bibliometrics to assess academic impact, quantitative indicators and metrics on economic and health outcomes, qualitative narratives and case studies, and conceptual frameworks such as logic models and related theories of change All of these require data on the inputs of research, and, depending on the questions asked in the assessment, associated data on outputs, outcomes and impact or a combination of the three. While we are aware of other conceptual frameworks for describing research processes
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
