W:
www.universitybusiness.co.uk | T: @UB_UK
NEWS AND CURRENT AF FAIRS | ARMA | 11 Read a related story: click here EMBEDDING IMPACT
Elizabeth Garcha, Research Impact Offi cer at the University of York, looks at how universities could approach embedding impact and knowledge exchange
Post REF2014, there has been much focus and discussion about how universities can 'embed impact'. To me, this really refers to a process of embedding engagement and knowledge exchange (KE) as part of what universities and academic staff do. There are a number of key
elements I see as essential to embedding KE and engagement. Firstly, there needs to be support
for academics, not just through training in public engagement or partnership working, but also support in recognising that if universities want to do engagement successfully, it takes time, as relationships never establish themselves instantly, and lack of time of academics is already an issue. Additionally, university
structures need to be in place to support staff when engagement goes wrong. For example, if an academic is talking about research that someone perceives to be controversial, or somehow unethical and member of the
audience or group they are talking to become aggressive, or upset. This seems to be an area that isn't currently widely discussed, but if the aim is to do more, and bet er engagement, then good support structures are critical.
Secondly, culture change is clearly core to embedding
impact, KE and engagement, but cultures won't change unless the systems and incentives also change. We need to recognise what the current culture and incentives are within our institutions, and then look for elements that
Elizabeth Garcha
can be altered, or incentives that can be added to help this process. In terms of incentives, we should perhaps aim to reward high quality engagement, rather than impact. No university can guarantee that its research will have impact. It relies on people outside the university taking research and doing something with it. What can be rewarded is high quality engagement that is undertaken with integrity, not as box ticking exercises.
Thirdly, we should encourage
engagement because it is a good in itself, but whilst we do it, we must recognise that external agencies are keen to hear about out research impact, and so we should record it and evaluate it. In particular, we should recognise that good evaluation is essential for
good impact and engagement. Without it, we can't tell if we
The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of the University of York.
Elizabeth Garcha is Research Impact Strategy and Policy Offi cer at the University of York.
She is a member of the Association of Research Managers and Administrators (ARMA) UK.
www.arma.ac.uk
are doing good engagement, or if we are having impact. However, it can be seen as not interesting, and very bureaucratic. Bringing these three elements
together is not a simple or quick task. It takes time and commitment, and a belief that engagement, knowledge exchange and impact are good for universities and wider society. UB
ARMA members
Main image: © Skypixel |
Dreamstime.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80