The Impact that Won't Go Away. (October 19, 2011)

It's now reported in  The Australian: "The Group of Eight is backing the trial [to establish a measure of research impact], which is being run by the Australian Technology Network. They have been joined by Charles Darwin University, Newcastle University and the University of Tasmania. In all, 12 institutions will participate."

Arun Sharma, deputy vice-chancellor (research) at Queensland University of Technology told The Australian's Andrew Trounson that there had been a "significant shift" within the sector towards establishing a legitimate measure. "There is momentum in the sector. It is no good saying it can't be done. An attempt has to be made. If there is a policy change then with the trial behind us we will be better prepared to meet it."

A symposium on measuring impact will be held by the ATN and the Group of Eight on Friday November 4 in Canberra.

It will be interesting to note what propositions will be put forward. Perhaps the views of  the former UK Minister for Science, the newly elected chancellor of Cambridge University Lord Sainsbury will be sought.  Interviewed by Times Higher Education recently he said: "I think the [UK] coalition is making a mistake -- which I have to say tended to be made by the Labour Party -- which is to think the way you get innovation is [by] putting a heavy emphasis on impact. this is totally to misunderstand what you should be doing. because it makes no sense to ask people doing basic research to say exactly what would be the impact of their work "because usually you don't know".

And the vice-chancellor for research at the University of California, San Francisco emphasised to the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Research and Science Education earlier this year the importance of using the merit review committees to judge proposals solely on their scientific merit, and said that it was inappropriate for reviewers to be asked to "step outside of their areas of expertise" and to "make guesses" if proposals are meeting national goals. Furthermore, he believes it is impossible to make such assessments at the level of individual projects. In short that should be the job of governmental funding mechanisms and the mission-driven agencies that support research in areas such as health, environment, or national security -- not the NSF [National Science Foundation] which has been battling to effect some sort of acceptable impact assessment since 1997 without success.

Tongue in cheek Science's Jeffrey Mervis reported in last week's issue: "For only $79—marked down from $197, according to one recent e-mail—a company in Florida offers a CD that teaches applicants how 'to successfully identify, distil, and communicate your project's broader impacts to NSF reviewers, improving your chances of funding'". Mr Mervis goes on to add: "For those scientists on a tight budget, there are plenty of free tips in the open literature."

Perhaps it's not surprising that the concept of scraping the ERA's retrospective assessments affecting block research funding is not particularly attractive to university administrations.

But it should be

What they ought to be working toward is significant improvement of the peer review systems of the federal research funding agencies coupled with awarding appropriate direct costs and oncosts to grant recipients.