Understanding the relative valuations of research impact: Applying best-worst scaling experiments to survey the public & biomedical/health researchers

了解研究影响的相对评估：应用最佳-最差尺度实验来调查公众

• 批准号: MR/L010569/1
• 负责人: Jonathan Grant
• 金额: $ 19.73万
• 依托单位: RAND Europe
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2013
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2013 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=MR%2FL010569%2F1
• 关键词: Understanding; relative; valuations; research; impact

Research Councils "encourage researchers to consider the potential contribution that their research can make to the economy and society from the outset, and the resources required to carry out appropriate and project specific knowledge exchange impact activities". As part of their funding applications, researchers must submit a 'Pathway to Impact' section which is peer reviewed by referees and panel members. Similarly the Funding Council will be assessing impact using a case study approach as part of the Research Excellence Framework. Case studies will be reviewed by academic peers and non-academic experts providing a private, public and third sector perspective. However, in assessing the adequacy/quality of these impact claims reviewers cannot currently draw on comprehensive evidence of the views of beneficiaries (i.e. the general population) or the producers of research (i.e. biomedical and health researchers) to qualify or justify their recommendations. It remains unclear how beneficiaries value research impact, how such values vary across different groups and more fundamentally if the UK population understands research impact. In the absence of knowledge about - and methods for assessing - values of beneficiaries and funders of research, policy that directs researchers to estimate impact and research funders to value such impacts rests on weak empiric foundations. This study aims to address this gap by refining and adapting a survey-based approach known as Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) to analyse the relative valuations of research impact as perceived by the general population and researchers. This study will focus on biomedical and health research and will contribute to the MRC's objective to fund studies that "Deliver user/beneficiary views on the contribution of academic research and MRC input to this".The proposed study comprises 5 phases:- Desk and qualitative research in the identification and classification of impacts. A thorough desk based review will catalogue various types of impacts and models for classifying them. We will then refine and develop this classification in four focus groups with the general public and 24 interviews with biomedical and health researchers. The output of this phase will be a conceptual framework with different types of biomedical and health related impact and different intensities of each impact category for use in the BWS survey.- Development of quantitative survey. Based on the first phase we will design and test a survey instrument to elicit relative ranks of different types of impact. The questionnaire will be tested through cognitive interviews and the full fieldwork procedures through a pilot with the public and researchers. The output of this phase will be the final survey instrument.- Fieldwork with researchers and the general public. We will use an online panel to survey 1000 members of the public and the list of existing MRC grantholders to survey 500 health and biomedical scientists. The output of this phase will be a dataset for analysis. - Analysis of researcher and public preferences. The analysis will involve two steps. First we will conduct a review and exploratory statistical analysis to identify associations and trends that require consideration in the modelling work. This would include sample composition across key socioeconomic and demographic variables and checking respondents' understanding of the survey (whether they were able to respond to the questions). Second we will develop a BWS model to (i) derive a full ranking of the impact statements by the general public and health and biomedical scientists, and (ii) explore the extent to which preferences are consistent across the two stakeholder groups. The output of this phase will be the study's main findings.- Reporting and dissemination. Findings will be widely disseminated to policy and research communities using a number of channels, including peer reviewed publications, policy briefs and videos.

研究委员会“鼓励研究人员从一开始就考虑他们的研究可以对经济和社会做出的潜在贡献，以及进行适当和计划的特定知识交换影响活动所需的资源”。作为其资助申请的一部分，研究人员必须提交“影响途径”部分，该部分由裁判和小组成员进行同行审查。同样，资助委员会将使用案例研究方法评估影响，这是研究卓越框架的一部分。案例研究将由学术同龄人和非学术专家进行审查，这些专家提供私人，公共和第三部门的观点。但是，在评估这些影响索赔的充分性/质量时，审稿人目前无法借鉴受益人（即一般人群）或研究生产者（即生物医学和健康研究人员）的全面证据来证明或证明其建议。尚不清楚受益人如何价值研究影响，这种价值在不同群体之间如何变化以及英国人口是否理解研究影响。在缺乏有关受益人和研究基金会价值观的知识和研究的方法的情况下，指导研究人员估算影响的政策，并研究资助者重视这种影响，这取决于薄弱的经验基础。这项研究旨在通过完善和调整基于调查的方法（BWS）来解决这一差距，以分析一般人群和研究人员所感知的研究影响的相对估值。这项研究将侧重于生物医学和健康研究，并有助于MRC的目标，以资助“对学术研究和MRC对此的贡献的用户/受益人的看法”的研究。对影响的识别和分类进行研究。详尽的基于桌面的审查将对它们进行各种类型的影响和模型进行分类。然后，我们将在四个焦点小组中与公众和24次对生物医学和健康研究人员的访谈进行完善并开发这种分类。此阶段的输出将是一个概念框架，具有不同类型的生物医学和健康相关影响，并且在BWS调查中使用的每个影响类别的不同强度。-定量调查的开发。基于第一阶段，我们将设计和测试调查工具，以引起不同类型影响的相对等级。问卷将通过认知访谈和全面的野外工作程序进行测试，并通过与公众和研究人员的飞行员进行测试。该阶段的输出将是最终的调查工具。-与研究人员和公众进行实地调查。我们将使用一个在线小组调查1000名公众和现有的MRC Granthorters名单，以调查500名健康和生物医学科学家。此阶段的输出将是用于分析的数据集。 - 研究人员和公众偏好的分析。该分析将涉及两个步骤。首先，我们将进行审查和探索性统计分析，以确定需要在建模工作中考虑的关联和趋势。这将包括跨关键的社会经济和人口统计学变量的样本组成，并检查受访者对调查的理解（他们是否能够回答问题）。其次，我们将开发一个BWS模型，以（i）获得公众，健康和生物医学科学家的影响陈述的全部排名，并（ii）探索在两个利益相关者群体中偏好一致的程度。该阶段的输出将是研究的主要发现。调查结果将通过许多渠道（包括同行审查的出版物，政策简介和视频）广泛地传播到政策和研究社区。

项目成果

Understanding the relative valuation of research impact: a best-worst scaling experiment of the general public and biomedical and health researchers.

• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010916
• 发表时间: 2016-08-18
• 期刊: BMJ open
• 影响因子: 2.9
• 作者: Pollitt A;Potoglou D;Patil S;Burge P;Guthrie S;King S;Wooding S;Wooding S;Grant J
• 通讯作者: Grant J