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?
No comments:
Post a Comment