The 'T' Factor

Plimsole, Doomberger and O'Leary

The ESRC recently launched a radical new scheme for funding 'transformative research'. Not only will the projects they fund be groundbreaking; the way they assess the applications will be too. Applicants will put in a  bare bones outline to the ESRC by 24 Jan, and those who tickle their fancy will be shortlisted and invited to an - if you will  - 'pitch to peers' workshop.


What exactly is a 'pitch to peers' workshop? I'm glad you asked me that. Imagine the X Factor for social science academics, with the other competitors as the judges. 

What could possibly go wrong? 

Dermot O'Leary: 'So, Prof Plimsole, what did you think of Dr Doomberger's project?'
Yes, we're all very much looking forward to the televising of this innovation in peer review. We've invested in  a widescreen plasma TV to watch the spectacle, and will be ready to vote for our favourites, frittering away our block grant on premium rate phone calls. Put your feet up, crack open the popcorn and let the spectacle begin!

Prof Plimsole (sniffily): 'To be honest, Dermot, it lacked cohesion. I admire her bravery in exploring the sociology of Lego, but her research questions were all over the place, her objectives were unrealistic, and her outputs were frankly negligible.' 
(boos from the audience)
Dermot O'Leary: 'Hmm, I'm not sure the audience agrees with you, Prof Plimsole...' (squeals from the audience. O'Leary turns to Doomberger) And Dr Doomberger: what do you think of Prof Plimsole's project?'
Dr Doomberger (angrily): 'I've never seen such routine, dull... incremental research (gasps of horror from the audience) masquerading as transformative in my life! His project couldn't transform its way out of a paper bag!' 
(the audience explodes)

The Difficulty of Impact

Definitely not David Sweeney

The LSE'Future of Impact' conference yesterday had a valedictory feel. It was the last huzzah for ‘The Impact of Social Sciences’, a HEFCE-funded project which had sought to 'develop precise methods for measuring and evaluating the impact of research in the public sphere.' 

Whilst they have achieved a lot – their blog is a fantastic forum for discussing issues relating to impact, for example – I think even their fiercest admirers would be hard pressed to say they had succeeded in this.

That’s not necessary their fault. Rather, it's the inevitable consquence of grapling with the amorphous, shape-shifting beast that is impact. This was particularly apparent in the third session yesterday, ‘Next Steps in Assessing Impact,’ which saw the three speakers almost come to blows over what impact is, who wants it, why, and how fast. This was partly down to the ever-entertaining David Sweeney, the architect of the REF. Like an embarrassing uncle at a wedding, he can always be relied upon to speak his mind. Loudly.

He took issue with the previous speaker, Julia Lane, who had been talking about StarMetrics. I’ve spoken about this before on this blog. To me, it sounds like an eminently sensible system (although I don’t think she did it justice here); Sweeney, however, begged to differ. Not only did he think that academia should not snap to attention when governments ask for data, but he implied that the system was only partially successful at collecting the right information. 

Similarly, he turned on the third speaker, Cameron Neylon. Neylon had suggested that Twitter could be used to monitor and engage with users of academic research. He gave an example of South African research which had been retweeted by someone working in community health promotion. ‘That’s not impact’, said Sweeney, dismissively.

And therein lies the problem. Here were three eminent speakers working at the coal face of impact. And yet, between them, they couldn’t reach agreement on what constituted impact, or why we should be doing it. If they have problems defining impact, what hope is there for the rest of us?