How research data deliver non-academic impacts: A secondary analysis of UK Research Excellence Framework impact case studies.

Eric A Jensen,Mark S Reed,Paul Wong,Lutz Bornmann

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264914

Abstract

This study investigates how research data contributes to non-academic impacts using a secondary analysis of high-scoring impact case studies from the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF). A content analysis was conducted to identify patterns, linking research data and impact. The most prevalent type of research data-driven impact related to "practice" (45%), which included changing how professionals operate, changing organizational culture and improving workplace productivity or outcomes. The second most common category was "government impacts", including reducing government service costs and enhancing government effectiveness or efficiency. Impacts from research data were developed most frequently through "improved institutional processes or methods" (40%) and developing impact via pre-analyzed or curated information in reports (32%), followed by "analytic software or methods" (26%). The analysis found that research data on their own rarely generate impacts. Instead they require analysis, curation, product development or other forms of significant intervention to leverage broader non-academic impacts.

Highlights

Making a positive difference in the world, or “impact”, has long been a driving force for researchers across the disciplinary spectrum, whether they generate research data or not
The first national assessment of research impact was conducted by the UK via its Research Excellence Framework in 2014 (REF2014), and there are national assessments of research impact in The Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Norway, Poland, Finland, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand and the USA
The research focuses on the content of REF2014 impact narratives, investigating how research data delivered positive societal outcomes and what factors enabled such outcomes to develop

Summary

Introduction

Making a positive difference in the world, or “impact”, has long been a driving force for researchers across the disciplinary spectrum, whether they generate research data or not. There is growing interest in the impact of research from funders who want evidence of the value of their research investments to society [1, 2]. This interest has been driven, in part, by successive economic crises that have intensified the need to justify continued public investment in research. The first national assessment of research impact was conducted by the UK via its Research Excellence Framework in 2014 (REF2014), and there are national assessments of research impact in The Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Norway, Poland, Finland, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand and the USA (for details, see Reed et al [1]).

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion