Love this #fieldworkfail from @ResilientDairy trying to catch flies on cattle - turns out sweep netting is a tad dangerous in a field of frisky cows, so they moved to glue traps on the hedges but they couldn't identify gluey flies..
Finally they struck gold with a technique that has all the farmers talking (or laughing) for miles: hoovering hedges with a hand held vaccum cleaner. It works!
My take on what the initial decisions on REF mean for impact. Summary: these are mainly tweaks that address issues for which most institutions already found work-arounds. You can read the full announcement here repository.jisc.ac.uk/9148/1/researc…
There are 4 main proposed changes to impact: a reduction in the minimum number of case studies needed for a submission, the reintroduction of an impact narrative at the unit level, removal of the 2* threshold for underpinning research and new criteria around rigour and engagement
1. The reduction in the number of case studies needed to make a submission may encourage new groups to submit to REF, but in my experience this wasn’t a major barrier to entry as long as people didn’t mind that at least one of their cases might get a low or unclassifiable score
We need to re-think research impact if we are to truly benefit those most in need. My new paper with @hannahrudman (4 years in the making) identifies three crucial points we need to consider when designing research for impact link.springer.com/article/10.100…
It isn't possible to define impact without asking "for whom" - what will benefit one group or species in one context may compromise the interests of another group, or the same group in a different context (based on this subjective definition of impact sciencedirect.com/science/articl…)
Without a robust theory of impact, we will continue to narrow/instrumentalise our ideas of "what counts" and fail to anticipate negative unintended consequences. Our paper is a first step towards such a theory, outlining 3 key factors determining beneficial outcomes from research
Really enjoying @wadekelly's new volume, The Impactful Academic. Struck by how far ahead Canada is when it comes to drawing on diverse forms of knowledge and paying attention to context, thanks to @LaurenAlbrecht3 and Catherine Scott's chapter
Decisions are rarely made on the basis of research evidence alone. They draw on many forms of knowledge, including experience and moral judgement. Our task is get the most relevant knowledge to decision-makers, not just our research.
The pursuit of impact should be "an ongoing commitment to learning and applying knowledge to solve real-life problems"
Holiday reading - haven't been as excited about a new book as much as this for ages...
Love this approach to theory building. Theory is useful when it both explains and helps, and if it isn't helpful enough, keep applying and refining your theory in practice until you have something that actually works
Engaging with uncertainty is a prerequisite to social learning because:
1) It creates urgency when we want to make a difference but don't know how, "restless uncertainty...as an edge, pulling learning, insisting that learning help make a difference"
In addition to having robust evidence, researchers need to communicate why they are qualified to deliver the message - don't assume your audience will know your work or trust you.
Different media lend themselves to communicating different types of message to different groups. We need to become multilingual: