Bridging the gap between scientific research, policy, and the quest for the right impact

The workshop featured a range of talks and a lively multidisciplinary discussion about the interactions between science, policy and research impact, with a focus on nanotechnology research.

Notions and practices of impact and relevance of scientific research have become especially prominent in the context of demands for what has been termed ‘responsible innovation.’ While researchers have to write impact statements in their grant proposals, the assessments of impact are part of research governance efforts in the UK and more broadly the EU. For large scale research initiatives, visionary claims of societal relevance and economic impact play a part in attracting industrial and federal support.

This workshop explored questions such as: what is the relationship between far reaching visions and more modest impact statements? How are claims of societal relevance justified in practice? What sorts of assumptions underlie these claims, as well as their assessment and attempts to capture evidence of impact? What are the politics of impact about? How are impact statements produced and interpreted in policy and science?

Workshop participants from a range of disciplines engaged in a candid and thought-provoking discussion about the use of impact statements in grant applications and the REF; and the opportunities, barriers and risks involved in the collaboration of scientists with industry and policy-makers.

Presentations and report for staff to download

• Download Christopher Coenen's Presentation
• Download the other Presentations from Policy Workshop (12 MB file)
• Download the Policy workshop report

   

  Agenda

14.15 Introduction: Professor Regenia Gagnier (Chair; College of Humanities and Facilitator, BTG Policy Strand) 

14.20-15.15: Scientific Impact Agenda
 

14.20 Responsible Research and Innovation and the Quest for the 'Right Impacts' - Professor Richard Owen (University of Exeter, Business School)

14.40 Tools of the Trade: UK Research Intermediaries and the Politics of Impacts - Dr Matthew Kearnes (Durham University, Department of Geography)

15.00 Discussion

15.15 Afternoon tea  

15.30-16.45: Perspectives on Nanotechnology

15.30 Making Sense of Nano in the Field of Technology Assessment - Christopher Coenen  (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (KIT-ITAS))

15.50 Impact Statements - a Researcher's Perspective - Dr Harish Bhaskaran (University of Exeter, College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences)

16.10 Making Nano Matter: a Social Scientist’s Dilemmas - Dr Elena Simakova (University of Exeter, Business School)

16.30 Impact: the Institutional Challenge to Capture the Evidence - Dr Michael Wykes (University of Exeter, Research and Knowledge Transfer)

16.45-17.15 Closing discussion

17.30 Finish 

Abstracts

Professor Richard Owen (University of Exeter, Business School): Responsible Research and Innovation and the Quest for the 'Right Impacts'

Over the coming years the European Commission is intending to reconfigure the European Research Area and its funding programmes around the concept of 'Responsible Research and Innovation', with an intended soft law initiative in 2012.  A significant element of this is the focussing of what it funds on the 'right impacts'. But what are the 'right impacts' and what is 'responsible research and innovation'? This talk will describe some of the emerging thinking in this area and some of the dilemmas and implications that may result.

Dr Matthew Kearnes (Durham University, Department of Geography): Tools of the Trade: UK Research Intermediaries and the Politics of Impacts

In recent years questions concerning the impact of public research funding have become the preeminent site at which struggles over the meanings and value of science are played out. In this paper I explore the ‘politics of impact’ in contemporary UK science and research policy and, in particular, detail the ways in which UK research councils have responded to and reframed recent calls for the quantitative measurement of research impacts.Operating as ‘boundary organisations’ research councils are embroiled in what might be characterised as the ‘politics of demarcation’ in which competing understandings of the cultural values of science are traded, exchanged and contested. In this paper I focus on the way the UK research councils have responded to contemporary policy discourses concerning the impacts of public research expenditure. I argue that, in response to the shifting terms of contemporary science policy, UK research councils have sought to emphasise the intellectual and metrological challenge presented by attempts to quantify the economic impact of public research expenditure and the cumulative impacts of a broad portfolio of ‘basic science’. In responding to government priority setting, I argue that this approach has sought to exploit both the technical fragility of auditing techniques and the discursive ambiguity of notions of impact.
 
Christopher Coenen  (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (KIT-ITAS)): Making Sense of Nano in the Field of Technology Assessment

In the early days of its political support, nanotechnology - though alleged to offer wide-ranging and major potential applications - appeared complex and far from clear-cut. In the talk, it will be discussed how German policy advice and technology assessment (TA) activities reacted to the challenge posed by the rise of nanoscience and nanotechnology since the early 2000s and attempted to make sense of this field of research and development. In particular, it will be asked how policy-oriented TA dealt with the visionary elements of nanotechnology discourse such as notions of a new 'industrial revolution' and a possible 'convergence' of nanoscience and nanotechnology with other fields of research and development. This will include outlining some of the lessons learned in TA activities on nano with regard to more general questions concerning emerging fields of science and technology, their policy aspects and their societal impact.

Dr Harish Bhaskaran (University of Exeter, College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences): Impact Statements - a Researcher's Perspective

In this talk, I'll try to verbalise the ambiguity that I feel towards what counts as impact. As a specialised researcher in the general field of nanotechnology, I shall ramble on for almost 20 minutes about how and why before-the-fact impact statements about basic research will be inaccurate at best. Could outsourcing this task to third-parties be an elegant solution?

And if you require an impact statement for this talk before you decide to attend it, here we go: "In brief, this talk will transform the way you'll think about research in scientific labs (and of course, force you to really stretch your imagination in order to achieve that). This in turn may boost your creativity. This creativity just may, if you stretch your imagination quite a bit more, positively impact the economy of the UK, the EU and the world."

Almost forgot the Pathways to Impact: "I shall give talks at meetings, organised by people I know, in distant locations almost 25 meters from my lab."

Dr Elena Simakova (University of Exeter, Business School):  Making Nano Matter: a Social Scientist’s Dilemmas The industrial relevance is one of the prominent themes that is part of governance of science, and of scientists’ attempts to achieve impactful research, often oriented into the future. How do we, as social science researchers, go about collecting, recording, and analysing such future stories?  I will discuss in what sense the research encounters can be understood as occasions testing what counts as societal relevance, under what circumstances, and in view of what kind of audiences.

Dr Michael Wykes (University of Exeter, Research and Knowledge Transfer): Impact: the Institutional Challenge to Capture the Evidence

This session will outline the key challenges facing Universities as they invest in additional support to generate the ‘clear and coherent narratives’, underpinned by concrete, factual evidence, of how research has had an effect on, changed or benefitted the economy, society, and culture.