lynx   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0302877.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact through research in education and studies in human society: A review of Australian Research Council ‘high-for-impact’ case studies

Author

Listed:
  • Grace Jefferson
  • Rosita Henry
  • Marion Heyeres
  • Rhian Morgan
  • Louisa Tomas
  • Komla Tsey
  • Ines Zuchowski
Abstract
Research impact is an important measure of the effective transmission and ongoing contribution of research beyond the scope of initial research publication outputs; however, determining what constitutes ‘high-for-impact’ research can be difficult for specific fields of study. This review of the Australian Research Council’s Engagement and Impact Assessment 2018 analyses high-for-impact case studies submitted in the fields of Education (n = 17) and Studies in Human Society (n = 11) with the aim of understanding and explicating how high impact research has been evidenced in these fields. The review was guided by three research questions that concern the identification of the key characteristics of high-for-impact case studies, their reported impacts, and the evidence researchers cite to support claims of impact. The review highlights an important limitation in how impact is defined and understood by researchers, particularly cultural and social impact. Half of the analysed case studies involved international engagement, with minimal partner collaboration in the global south and countries in the Indo-Pacific, despite the region’s strategic geo-political importance for Australia. Our findings draw into question the distribution of funding to universities and where investment might best be made for the highest potential return on research impact. Another key finding is that reported impacts across the domains of economy, society, culture, national security, public service, health, environment and quality of life offer little satisfactory evidence of impact, despite affording valuable insights into the nature of impact claimed. Accordingly, we conclude that to enhance the value of research and demonstrate impact in Education and Social Sciences, improved impact literacy is required among researchers. We assert that a better understanding of what constitutes impact and how it can be evidenced will support more impactful research designs. Wider adoption of the holistic anthropological definition of culture, which integrates values, practices and products, would enhance impact case studies by expanding their focus to include the broader cultural changes that underpin sustained social change. While the ARC engagement and impact agenda is a step in the right direction, improving the value of research for society will require a radical reconceptualisation of research and its funding, well beyond the current assessment framework. The Lowitja Institute’s research-for-impact framework [1] is proposed as an alternative approach to research priority-setting based on explicit evidence gap analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Grace Jefferson & Rosita Henry & Marion Heyeres & Rhian Morgan & Louisa Tomas & Komla Tsey & Ines Zuchowski, 2024. "Impact through research in education and studies in human society: A review of Australian Research Council ‘high-for-impact’ case studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-23, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0302877
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302877
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0302877
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0302877&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0302877?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gonzalez-Brambila, Claudia N. & Veloso, Francisco M. & Krackhardt, David, 2013. "The impact of network embeddedness on research output," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1555-1567.
    2. Tsey, Komla & Onnis, Leigh-ann & Whiteside, Mary & McCalman, Janya & Williams, Megan & Heyeres, Marion & Lui, Siu Man (Carrie) & Klieve, Helen & Cadet-James, Yvonne & Baird, Leslie & Brown, Catherine , 2019. "Assessing research impact: Australian Research Council criteria and the case of Family Wellbeing research," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 176-186.
    3. He, Zi-Lin & Geng, Xue-Song & Campbell-Hunt, Colin, 2009. "Research collaboration and research output: A longitudinal study of 65 biomedical scientists in a New Zealand university," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 306-317, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stefano Scarazzati & Lili Wang, 2019. "The effect of collaborations on scientific research output: the case of nanoscience in Chinese regions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 839-868, November.
    2. Yun Liu & Mengya Zhang & Gupeng Zhang & Xiongxiong You, 2022. "Scientific elites versus other scientists: who are better at taking advantage of the research collaboration network?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3145-3166, June.
    3. Guan, JianCheng & Zuo, KaiRui & Chen, KaiHua & Yam, Richard C.M., 2016. "Does country-level R&D efficiency benefit from the collaboration network structure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 770-784.
    4. Tu, Jing, 2024. "Openness to international collaboration and tie strength in enhancing knowledge creation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    5. Claudia N. Gonzalez Brambila & Renata Herrerias, 2024. "Assessing the impact of collaborative authorship in Business Economics in Latin America," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4623-4660, July.
    6. Chen, Kaihua & Ding, Yi & Zhao, Binbin & Guo, Rui & Ning, Lutao, 2025. "Benefits beyond the local network: Does indirect international collaboration ties contribute to research performance for young scientists?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(5).
    7. Chen, Kaihua & Zhang, Yi & Zhu, Guilong & Mu, Rongping, 2020. "Do research institutes benefit from their network positions in research collaboration networks with industries or/and universities?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 94.
    8. Lu, Wei & Ren, Yan & Huang, Yong & Bu, Yi & Zhang, Yuehan, 2021. "Scientific collaboration and career stages: An ego-centric perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    9. Wang Guizhou & Zhang Si & Yu Tao & Ning Yu, 2021. "A Systematic Overview of Blockchain Research," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 9(3), pages 205-238, June.
    10. Zuo, Zhiya & Zhao, Kang, 2018. "The more multidisciplinary the better? – The prevalence and interdisciplinarity of research collaborations in multidisciplinary institutions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 736-756.
    11. Yunpeng Sun & Ruoya Jia & Asif Razzaq & Qun Bao, 2023. "RETRACTED ARTICLE: Drivers of China’s geographical renewable energy development: evidence from spatial association network structure approaches," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 4115-4163, December.
    12. Verónica Amarante & Marisa Bucheli & Mariana Rodriguez, 2024. "Research Networks and Publications in Economics: Evidence from a Small Developing Country," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(2), pages 5571-5598, June.
    13. Barry Bozeman & Monica Gaughan & Jan Youtie & Catherine P. Slade & Heather Rimes, 2016. "Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: Dispatches from the front lines," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 226-244.
    14. Lutter, Mark, 2014. "Creative success and network embeddedness: Explaining critical recognition of film directors in Hollywood, 1900-2010," MPIfG Discussion Paper 14/11, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    15. Zhang, Yi & Chen, Kaihua, 2022. "Network growth dynamics: The simultaneous interaction between network positions and research performance of collaborative organisations," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    16. Xuerong Li & Han Qiao & Shouyang Wang, 2017. "Exploring evolution and emerging trends in business model study: a co-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 869-887, May.
    17. Waleed M. Sweileh & Sa’ed H. Zyoud & Suleiman Al-Khalil & Samah W. Al-Jabi & Ansam F. Sawalha, 2014. "Assessing the Scientific Research Productivity of the Palestinian Higher Education Institutions," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(3), pages 21582440145, July.
    18. Jiancheng Guan & Lanxin Pang, 2018. "Bidirectional relationship between network position and knowledge creation in Scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 201-222, April.
    19. Krzysztof Klincewicz, 2016. "The emergent dynamics of a technological research topic: the case of graphene," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 319-345, January.
    20. Álvarez-Bornstein, Belén & Bordons, María, 2021. "Is funding related to higher research impact? Exploring its relationship and the mediating role of collaboration in several disciplines," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0302877. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.
    Лучший частный хостинг