Les Field Said It: Impact Sometimes Requires Long Decades of Research. (June 4, 2013)

Last week the deputy vice-chancellor (research) at the University of NSW, Les Field, wrote a polite but stinging opinion piece for The Australian.

Professor Field asks a simple question but the answer(s) are not simple and indeed are often impossible to formulate in a short timeframe whether or not our political leaders are prepared to acknowledge that.

The question? At what point along the lengthy pathway from discovery to application does it become clear that a research project will make an impact beyond the lab?

Professor Field continues: Last year, several universities participated in the first Excellence in Innovation for Australia [EIA] trial, which used a series of case studies to tease out research impacts... The EIA trial produced an excellent portfolio of stories about the benefits of research but also highlighted the difficulties in trying to measure something as nebulous as impact.

First, there is the problem of retrospectivity: most of the work we showcased was done some time ago. That's because the fruits of research need to be taken up, accepted and applied in ways that are meaningful to society. Achieving "high impact status" takes time. It doesn't necessarily follow we can join the dots to research being done today.

Second, there is the vexed issue of attribution... High impact outcomes typically evolve across time with many contributors, many of whom move on and off the various projects.

Third, there is the question of proof - it's easy to tell the story of a great outcome but sometimes difficult to produce the paper trail that can verify the link from source to outcome.

[I]t's not difficult to find really good examples to highlight high-impact university research, but the tough part is converting this to an impact assessment, and particularly an assessment relevant to the sector today, or to where we want it to be tomorrow.

And then the punch line:

[A]lmost none of the research projects that had made the "significant impacts list" in the EIA trial were planned around impact metrics. Specifically positioning the research for impact was never a consideration.

Professor Field's take-home message? We best can deliver real, far-reaching benefits to our societies and economies by focusing on creativity and excellence, and by providing the environment in which the creativity and innovation can flourish.

________________________________________________

Below is an excerpt from a dialogue between two of our sometime contributors while they wait for Godot.

Professor Field features in the discussion.

Vladimir: Well according to The Australian's Julie Hare: "Just two years after the first Excellence in Research for Australia was conducted, almost every one of the 39 institutions audited showed marked improvement in the quality of research being assessed."

Estragon: That's amazing, Vladimir, who would of ever thought it. In just Two years! You sure?

V: Would I lie to you,  Gogo; we are truly punching above our weight.

E: no, no, forget that stuff, I'm asking you, do you really believe that in two years our university sector has increased its brilliance to this remarkable extent, because I think that's rubbish.

V: So what makes you the expert?

E: Not me, but how about the deputy vice-chancellor (research) at the University of NSW.

V: And what's he/she got to say?

E: In this case he's a he, Les Field, and he says that the upward drift from 10 universities classified as "at or above world standard" in 2010 to about half of the 39 this year, "can't be the result of dramatic improvement, but must reflect changes to assessment criteria and the assessment process".

V: So you're saying the ERA has cooked the books and is a waste of time?

E: Waste of time?  How could you come to such a conclusion?  Oh no, son, it's much worse, it's a pernicious waste of money and intellectual resources par excellence. The waste of time is a by-product.