IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v27y2018i2p93-105..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative review of how the policy and procedures to assess research impact evolved in Australia and the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Kate Williams
  • Jonathan Grant

Abstract

This article offers a systematic review of the evolution of research impact assessment in Australia and the UK. We consider its inception and detail the development of relevant policy and procedures in each country. The article sets out the results of a comparative analysis of public policy documents, newspaper commentary, and academic literature in both countries. We examined the differences and commonalities between the two nations, revealing evaluation criteria and uncovering justifications for the adoption of impact assessment. The article highlights the convergence and divergence of the two countries’ policy and procedures, as well as the political and bureaucratic contexts that have shaped their design and implementation. The article shows that the synergistic, intermittent, and iterative development of relevant policy and procedures in the two nations has been mutually beneficial for the evolution of retrospective impact assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Kate Williams & Jonathan Grant, 2018. "A comparative review of how the policy and procedures to assess research impact evolved in Australia and the UK," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 93-105.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:27:y:2018:i:2:p:93-105.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvx042
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lawarée, Justin & Jacob, Steve & Ouimet, Mathieu, 2020. "A scoping review of knowledge syntheses in the field of evaluation across four decades of practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    2. Elea Giménez-Toledo & Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez & Tim C. E. Engels & Raf Guns & Emanuel Kulczycki & Michael Ochsner & Janne Pölönen & Gunnar Sivertsen & Alesia A. Zuccala, 2019. "Taking scholarly books into account, part II: a comparison of 19 European countries in evaluation and funding," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 233-251, January.

    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:oup:rseval:v:27:y:2018:i:2:p:93-105.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.