Suchergebnisse

Research impact is an important measure of the effective transmission and ongoing contribution of research beyond the scope of initial research publication outputs; however, determining what constitutes 'high-for-impact' research can be difficult for specific fields of study. This review of the Australian Research Council's Engagement and Impact Assessment 2018 analyses high-for-impact case studies submitted in the fields of Education (n = 17) and Studies in Human Society (n = 11) with the aim of understanding and explicating how high impact research has been evidenced in these fields. The review was guided by three research questions that concern the identification of the key characteristics of high-for-impact case studies, their reported impacts, and the evidence researchers cite to support claims of impact. The review highlights an important limitation in how impact is defined and understood by researchers, particularly cultural and social impact. Half of the analysed case studies involved international engagement, with minimal partner collaboration in the global south and countries in the Indo-Pacific, despite the region's strategic geo-political importance for Australia. Our findings draw into question the distribution of funding to universities and where investment might best be made for the highest potential return on research impact. Another key finding is that reported impacts across the domains of economy, society, culture, national security, public service, health, environment and quality of life offer little satisfactory evidence of impact, despite affording valuable insights into the nature of impact claimed. Accordingly, we conclude that to enhance the value of research and demonstrate impact in Education and Social Sciences, improved impact literacy is required among researchers. We assert that a better understanding of what constitutes impact and how it can be evidenced will support more impactful research designs. Wider adoption of the holistic anthropological definition of culture, which integrates values, practices and products, would enhance impact case studies by expanding their focus to include the broader cultural changes that underpin sustained social change. While the ARC engagement and impact agenda is a step in the right direction, improving the value of research for society will require a radical reconceptualisation of research and its funding, well beyond the current assessment framework. The Lowitja Institute's research-for-impact framework [1] is proposed as an alternative approach to research priority-setting based on explicit evidence gap analysis.

There is keen interest in many jurisdictions in finding ways to improve the way that research evidence informs policy. One possible mechanism for this is to embed academics within government agencies either as advisers or full staff members. Our commentary argues that, in addition to considering the role of academics in government as proposed by Glied and colleagues, we need to understand better how research and policy interactions function across policy sectors. We believe more comparative research is needed to understand if and why academics from certain disciplines are more likely to be recruited to work in some policy sectors rather than others. We caution against treating government as monolithic by advocating the same model for collaborative interaction between academics and government. Lastly, we contend that contextualized research is needed to illuminate important drivers of research and policy interactions before we can recommend what is likely to be more and less effective in different policy sectors.

Background: There is a widely recognized need for more pragmatic trials that evaluate interventions in real-world settings to inform decision-making by patients, providers, and health system leaders. Increasing availability of electronic health records, centralized research ethics review, and novel trial designs, combined with support and resources from governments worldwide for patient-centered research, have created an unprecedented opportunity to advance the conduct of pragmatic trials, which can ultimately improve patient health and health system outcomes. Such trials raise ethical issues that have not yet been fully addressed, with existing literature concentrating on regulations in specific jurisdictions rather than arguments grounded in ethical principles. Proposed solutions (e.g. using different regulations in "learning healthcare systems") are speculative with no guarantee of improvement over existing oversight procedures. Most importantly, the literature does not reflect a broad vision of protecting the core liberty and welfare interests of research participants. Novel ethical guidance is required. We have assembled a team of ethicists, trialists, methodologists, social scientists, knowledge users, and community members with the goal of developing guidance for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials. Methods: Our project will combine empirical and conceptual work and a consensus development process. Empirical work will: (1) identify a comprehensive list of ethical issues through interviews with a small group of key informants (e.g. trialists, ethicists, chairs of research ethics committees); (2) document current practices by reviewing a random sample of pragmatic trials and surveying authors; (3) elicit views of chairs of research ethics committees through surveys in Canada, UK, USA, France, and Australia; and (4) elicit views and experiences of community members and health system leaders through focus groups and surveys. Conceptual work will consist of an ethical analysis of identified ...

Human?animal studies explores human?animal relations and the place of animals within human social and cultural worlds. Considering that much of human society is structured through its interaction with non-human animals, and since human society relies heavily on the exploitation of animals to serve human needs, human?animal studies has become a rapidly expanding field of research, featuring a number of distinct positions, perspectives, and theories that require nuanced explanation and contextualization.The first textbook to provide a full overview of human?animal studies for students, general r