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.

研究理事会“鼓励研究人员从一开始就考虑其研究对经济和社会的潜在贡献，以及开展适当的和具体项目的知识交流影响活动所需的资源”。作为资助申请的一部分，研究人员必须提交一个“影响之路”部分，由裁判和小组成员进行同行评审。同样，资助理事会将采用案例研究方法评估影响，作为卓越研究框架的一部分。案例研究将由学术同行和非学术专家进行审查，提供私人，公共和第三部门的观点。然而，在评估这些影响索赔的适当性/质量时，审查人员目前无法利用受益人（即普通民众）或研究人员（即生物医学和卫生研究人员）的意见的全面证据来证明其建议的资格或理由。目前尚不清楚受益人如何评价研究的影响，这些价值观如何在不同群体之间变化，以及更根本的是，英国人口是否理解研究的影响。在缺乏有关研究受益人和资助者价值的知识和评估方法的情况下，指导研究人员估计影响和研究资助者评估此类影响的政策依赖于薄弱的经验基础。本研究旨在通过改进和调整一种基于调查的方法来解决这一差距，该方法被称为最佳-最差缩放（BWS），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，并将有助于实现医学研究委员会资助研究的目标，“就学术研究和医学研究委员会对此的投入的贡献提供用户/受益人的意见”。拟议的研究包括5个阶段：一项彻底的案头审查将对各种类型的影响和分类模型进行编目。然后，我们将在四个焦点小组中与公众和24个生物医学和健康研究人员的访谈中完善和发展这一分类。这一阶段的产出将是一个概念框架，其中包括不同类型的生物医学和健康相关影响以及每个影响类别的不同强度，供BWS调查使用。开展定量调查。在第一阶段的基础上，我们将设计和测试一个调查工具，以得出不同类型影响的相对等级。该问卷将通过认知访谈和与公众和研究人员进行试点的完整实地工作程序进行测试。这一阶段的产出将是最终的调查工具。与研究人员和公众进行实地考察。我们将使用一个在线小组调查1000名公众，并使用现有MRC grantholders名单调查500名健康和生物医学科学家。这一阶段的输出将是一个数据集进行分析。- 分析研究人员和公众的偏好。分析将包括两个步骤。首先，我们将进行审查和探索性统计分析，以确定建模工作中需要考虑的关联和趋势。这将包括主要社会经济和人口变量的样本构成，并检查答卷人对调查的理解（他们是否能够回答问题）。其次，我们将开发一个BWS模型，以（i）获得公众和健康和生物医学科学家的影响声明的完整排名，以及（ii）探索两个利益相关者群体的偏好一致性的程度。这一阶段的产出将是研究的主要结果。报告和传播。调查结果将通过若干渠道，包括同行审查的出版物、政策简报和视频，广泛传播给政策和研究界。

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