From Engagement to Impact? Articulating the Public Value of Academic Research

Tertiary Education and Management

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 115-130

  Watermeyer, Richard ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

higher education policy development; higher education research design; inclusive exclusive higher education; management; strategic planning; widening access participation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861936687     PISSN: 13583883     EISSN: 15731936     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13583883.2011.641578     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). (2009). Leading the world: The economic impact of UK arts and humanities research. Retrieved March 10, 2011, fromwww.ahrc.ac.uk/About/Policy/Documents/leadingtheworld.pdf
2. Bauer, M. W., Allum, N. and Miller, S. 2007. What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research?. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1): 79-95.
3. Bohm, D. 2010. On dialogue, London: Routledge Classics.
4. Bowling, A. and Rowe, G. 2005. "You decide doctor". What do patient preference arms in clinical trials really mean?. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(11): 914-915.
5. Bryson, J. M. 2004. What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1): 21-53.
6. Bucchi, M. 2009. Beyond technocracy: Science, politics and citizens, New York, NY: Springer.
7. Burrows, J. 1999. Going beyond labels: A framework for profiling institutional stakeholders. Contemporary Education, 70(4): 5-10.
8. Castells, M. 1996. The rise of the network society, the information age: Economy, society and culture, Vol. 1, Oxford: Blackwell.
9. Clark, B. R. 1998. Creating entrepreneurial universities. Organizational pathways of transformation, Oxford: Pergamon/IAU Press.
10. Durant, J. 1999. Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science and Public Policy, 26(5): 313-319.
11. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). (2010). How to maximise impact. Retrieved January 15, 2011, fromhttp://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding-and-guidance/tools-and-resources/impact-toolkit/what-how-and-why/how-to.aspx
12. Etzkovitz, H. 2002. Incubation of incubators: Innovation as a triple helix of university-industry-government networks. Science and Public Policy, 29(2): 115-128.
13. Etzkovitz, H. 2003. Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3): 295-337.
14. Faulkner, A. 2006. Beyond our expectations: A report of the experiences of involving service users in forensic mental health research, National Programme on Forensic Mental Health R&D London: Department of Health.
15. Fischer, F. 2005. "Are scientists irrational? Risk assessment in practical reason". In Science and citizens: Globalisation and the challenge of engagement, Edited by: Leach, M., Scoones, I. and Wynne, B. 54-65. London: Zed Books.
16. Gregory, J. and Lock, S. J. 2008. The evolution of 'Public Understanding of Science' in the UK. Sociology Compass, 2(4): 1252-1265.
17. Gregory, J. and Miller, S. 1998. Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility, Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
18. HEFCE/REF 2014. (2010a). Research excellence framework impact pilot exercise. Findings of the expert panels. Retrieved April 24, 2011, fromhttp://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/other/re01_10/
19. HEFCE/REF 2014. (2010b). Research excellence framework impact pilot exercise. Findings of the expert panels. Annex 1: Social work and social policy panel additional feedback. Retrieved April 24, 2011, fromhttp://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/other/re01_10/
20. HEFCE/REF 2014. (2011a). Decisions on assessing research impact. Retrieved July 25, 2011, fromhttp://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2011/01_11/
21. HEFCE/REF 2014. (2011b). Assessment framework and guidance on submissions. Retrieved July 25, 2011, fromhttp://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2011/02_11/
22. Holmes, W., Stewart, P., Garrow, A., Anderson, I. and Thorpe, L. 2002. Researching Aboriginal health: Experience from a study of urban young people's health and well-being. Social Science & Medicine, 54(8): 1267-1279.
23. Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Murdock, G. and O'Riordan, T. 2007. The GM debate: Risk, politics and public engagement, London: Routledge.
24. House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology. (2000). Science and society-3rd report. London: HMSO.
25. Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen science, London: Routledge.
26. Irwin, A. 2006. The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the "new" scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36(2): 299-320.
27. Irwin, A. and Michael, M. 2003. Science, social theory and public knowledge, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
28. Irwin, A. and Wynne, B., eds. 1996. Misunderstanding science: The public reconstruction of science and technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Jasanoff, S. 2005. Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30. Ladyman, J. (2009). Cited in Corbyn, Z. Anti-impact campaign's "poster-boy" sticks up for the Ivory Tower. Times Higher Education. Retrieved April 25, 2011, fromhttp://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=409614§ioncode=26
31. Lam, Y. L. J. and Pang, S. K. N. 2003. The relative effects of environmental, internal and contextual factors on organizational learning: The case of Hong Kong schools under reforms. The Learning Organization, 10(2): 83-97.
32. Leadbeater, C. 1999. Living on thin air: The new economy, New York, NY: Viking.
33. Lederbogen, U. and Trebbe, J. 2003. Promoting science on the web: Public relations for scientific organizations-results of a content analysis. Science Communication, 24(3): 333-352.
34. Lehr, J. L., McCallie, E., Davies, S. R., Caron, B. R., Gammon, B. and Duensing, S. 2007. The role and value of dialogue events as sites of informal science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12): 1467-1487.
35. Leydesdorff, L. and Etzkowitz, H. 1996. Emergence of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy, 23(5): 279-286.
36. LSE Blogs. (2011). Impact of social sciences: Maximizing the impact of academic research. Retrieved July 27, 2011, fromhttp://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/
37. Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H. and Raposo, M. 2010. An exploratory research on the stakeholders of a university. Journal of Management and Strategy, 1(1): 76-88.
38. Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H. and Raposo, M. 2011. The process of change in university management: From the "Ivory Tower" to "Entrepreneurialism". Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 33(2): 124-149.
39. Marris, C., Wynne, B., Simmons, P., & Weldon, S. (2001). Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology in Europe. (PABE) Final Report. Retrieved January 20, 2012, fromhttp://csec.lancs.ac.uk/archive/pabe/docs.htm
40. Massoli, L. 2007. Science on the net: An analysis of the websites of the European public research institutions. Journal of Science Communication, 6(3) Retrieved January 20, 2012, fromhttp://jcom.sissa.it/archive/06/03
41. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. and Wood, D. J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 2(2-4): 853-886.
42. Mosavel, M., Simon, C., van Stade, D. and Buchbinder, M. 2005. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) in South Africa: Engaging multiple constituents to shape the research questions. Social Science and Medicine, 61(12): 2577-2587.
43. Neave, G. 2002. "Stakeholder perspective historically explored". In Higher education in a globalising world: International trends and mutual observations, Edited by: Enders, J. and Fulton, O. 17-37. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
44. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. 2001. Rethinking science, Cambridge: Polity.
45. Research Councils UK (RCUK). (2010). A Concordat for engaging the public with research. Retrieved February 14, 2011, fromhttp://www.rcuk.ac.uk/per/Pages/Concordat.aspx
46. Research Councils UK (RCUK). (2011a). RCUK impact requirements. Frequently asked questions. Retrieved July 17, 2011, fromhttp://www.rcuk.ac.uk/kei/impacts/Pages/Guidance.aspx
47. Research Councils UK (RCUK). (2011b). Excellence with impact. Characteristics of a problematic and highly graded pathways to impact. Retrieved July 2, 2011, fromhttp://www.rcuk.ac.uk/kei/impacts/Pages/Characteristics.aspx
48. Royal Society. 1985. The public understanding of science, London: Royal Society.
49. Russell Group. 2010. The economic impact of research conducted in Russell Group universities, London: Russell Group.
50. Russell Group. (2011). Russell Group warns that REF impact weighting is still too high. Retrieved July 20, 2011, fromhttp://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/russell-group-latest-news/137-2011/4774-russell-group-warns-that-ref-impact-weighting-is-still-too-high/
51. Schneider, B., Scissons, H., Arney, L., Benson, G., Derry, J.Lucas, K. 2004. Communication between people with schizophrenia and their medical professionals: A participatory research project. Qualitative Health Research, 14(4): 562-577.
52. Stilgoe, J. and Wilsdon, J. 2009. "The new politics of public engagement with science". In Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media, Edited by: Holliman, R., Whitelegg, E., Scanlon, E., Smidt, S. and Thomas, J. 18-34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53. Stirling, A. 2006. Gover'Science Seminar 2005-Outcome: From science and society to science in society: Towards a framework for "co-operative research", Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
54. Thorpe, C. 2010. Participation as post-Fordist politics: Demos, New Labour, and science policy. Minerva, 48(4): 389-411.
55. Trench, B. 2009. "Science reporting in the electronic embrace of the Internet". In Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media, Edited by: Holliman, R., Whitelegg, E., Scanlon, E., Smidt, S. and Thomas, J. 166-180. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
56. Universities UK. 2009. The impact of universities on the UK economy, London: Universities UK.
57. University and College Union. (2009). UCU response to the REF consultation. Retrieved January 17, 2011, fromhttp://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=4207
58. Von Tunzelman, N., & Kraemer Mhula, E. (2003). Changes in research assessment practices in other countries since 1999: Final report. Report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Bristol: HEFCE.
59. Watermeyer, R. 2011. Challenges for engagement: Towards a public academe?. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(4): 386-410.
60. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61. Williams, G., ed. 2003. The enterprising university: Reform, excellence and equity, Buckingham: Open University Press.
62. Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream, London: Demos.
63. Wissenberg, A. (2011, June 13). Research impact and the REF. Address given to Investigating Academic Impact Conference, at the London School of Economics, London.
64. Wynne, B. 1996. "May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide". In Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology, Edited by: Lash, S., Szersynski, B. and Wynne, B. 44-83. London: Sage.