Search results

The purpose of this paper, using an evidence‐based management theoretical lens, is to examine research impact to provide guidance to supply chain management academics in evidencing and exploiting the outputs, outcomes and impact of their research.

Evidence‐based management theory is examined and applied to types of academic research impact. The distinction between academic and non‐academic impact is developed into a supply chain framework of research outputs, transfer, outcomes, impact and national/international benefits. Impact of supply chain management research is explored through a case study in the English National Health Service. Future opportunities and challenges for supply chain management researchers arising from increasing demand for and supply of evidence are discussed.

Author academic impact and citations are found to be increasingly important building blocks of evidence‐based evaluations of individual academics, journals, research quality assessments of groups and universities, and global rankings of universities. Supply chain management researchers can compare their impact with other areas of academia. Non‐academic impact of research has been assessed by funders of research projects and has spread to research quality assessments of universities.

Bibliometrics provide evidence of author and journal impact that can be used in human resource decisions, research quality assessments and global rankings of universities; this availability enables a debate on appropriate use of academic impact evidence. Supply chain management academics evidencing non‐academic research impact on business, society and economy will enable governments and funders of research to evaluate value for money return on their investment.

This perspective of evidence‐based evaluation of research impact and its implications might encourage debate on academic and non‐academic impact and encourage supply chain researchers to consider evidencing impact in their research design and methodology.

Academic promotion brings rewards to individuals but is also a critical measure of institutional quality: it is a positive indicator if colleagues successfully engage with rigorous scrutiny of professional practice. The higher education sector is also rapidly changing in response to demands for metrics to measure excellence. This chapter explores the influence of these external drivers within the UK context on local promotion policy, such as academic pathways, domains of practice, and levels of responsibility. Insights from successful colleagues are also shared and guidance offered on how to prepare for promotion through thoughtful professional development and a purposeful evidence base for demonstrating impact.

This chapter addresses one of the most challenging aspects of impact, ‘how do I demonstrate that I've had an impact?’ When the topic of impact comes up, researchers want to know how they'll measure it. As not all evidence is a measurement, this chapter describes how researchers can be strategic and intentional about collecting and reporting impact evidence. As discussed in Chapter 1, a narrative approach to reporting on impact is generally used and making a case compelling is achieved with compelling evidence. Drawing on learnings from previous chapters around working with stakeholders and university systems and supports, the chapter challenges the reader to consider how they might build a compelling impact case study and provides a tool to support collecting and communicating the evidence of impact of your research. Case studies are generally utilised to demonstrate different types of evidence from various disciplines, and a template is provided for researchers to begin mapping out their impact evidence plan. Consistent with the approach of the book, it is emphasised that collecting the evidence of impact is not done in isolation or for one project and then forgotten. Rather, it is a whole career approach that is aligned with an individual philosophy of academic responsibility and identity. Being able to use excellent evidence to articulate the impact your research has generated will position the researcher to better attract additional funding to generate bigger impact in the future.

Mentoring and coaching are key strategies employed in workplace learning and are perceived as effective ways to provide learner support. However, there is a paucity of evidence of how research outcomes may have influenced these practices and to what extent they have benefited those involved in this process. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that research on mentoring and coaching can in fact result in beneficial impacts on education professionals’ learning and development.

The paper critically reflects on the process of developing an impact case study submitted to the UK Research Excellence Framework 2014. It seeks to make explicit the close relationship that exists between research and professional practice and how evidence of any resulting impact of research on user communities can be identified, collected and verified.

In describing the process of developing such an impact case study the article focuses on three key aspects: identifying a suitable case; meeting the criteria of high quality research; and evidencing impact. It highlights the importance of a collective, cross-professional approach and draws attention to the nexus that needs to be established between user and research communities, between academics and professional practitioners, in order to generate evidence of research impact in the field.

This paper brings to light the benefits research in mentoring and coaching can have on policy and practice, specifically in terms of education professionals’ workplace learning and continuing professional development in a local and international context.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the quantitative measurement tools used in fields of study related to coproduction, as an approach to mobilizing knowledge, in order to inform the measurement of impact.

An overview methodology was used to synthesize the findings from prior instrument reviews, focusing on the contexts in which measurement tools have been used, the main constructs and content themes of the tools, and the extent to which the tools display promising psychometric and pragmatic qualities.

Eight identified reviews described 441 instruments and measures designed to capture various aspects of knowledge being mobilized among diverse research stakeholders, with 291 (66%) exhibiting relevance for impact measurement.

Future studies that measure aspects of coproduction need to engage more openly and critically with psychometric and pragmatic considerations when designing, implementing and reporting on measurement tools.

Twenty-seven tools with strong measurement properties for evidencing impact in coproduction were identified, offering a starting point for scholars and practitioners engaging in partnered approaches to research, such as in professional learning networks.

Current quantitative approaches to measuring the impacts of coproduction are failing to do so in ways that are meaningful, consistent, rigorous, reproducible and equitable. This paper provides a first step to addressing this issue by exploring promising measurement tools from fields of study with theoretical similarities to coproduction.

Work-based learning (WBL) has long been recognized and lauded for its transformative capabilities, enriching the knowledge and organizational and cultural impact of its learners. Students deepen understanding of their sector as well as professional interdisciplinarity on work-based academic programs, and in focusing on real-world scenarios in a scholarly way, open up opportunities for improvement and change. However, one of the key challenges in sustaining or continually improving provision for work-based learners in this context is in evidencing impact of enhancement-based, in-program learning and teaching activities. This chapter will examine some of the ways in which WBL values influence academic support delivery at one United Kingdom (UK) Higher Education Institution (HEI) and present examples of the operationalization of some WBL-driving principles in practice. In so doing, this chapter aims to share some of the tenets underpinning WBL practices in the UK in exploring its potential role and contribution as a socially responsible endeavor.

As the provision of public services in many advanced welfare states has increasingly come to be marked by competition, social enterprises have actively been encouraged by governments to become involved in the delivery of public services. While the evaluation of complex public health interventions has arguably become increasingly more sophisticated, this has not been the case where social enterprise is concerned: evaluation of the actual impacts of social enterprises remains significantly underdeveloped by comparison. This study aims to support the establishment of a robust evidence base for the use of social enterprise as a policy instrument.

This paper assesses the potential of three methodological approaches common in the evaluation of complex public health interventions and applies them to the complex realm of community-led social enterprise.

Only through the involvement of different comparator groups, based on the research questions addressed, would it be possible to disentangle the embedded characteristics of organisations such as social enterprises. Each of the methods adopted in this research is time-consuming and resource-intensive and requires the researcher to possess advanced skills. Public officials should recognise the complexity and resource-intensive nature of such evaluation and resource it accordingly. If the aim of policymakers is to understand the added value of social enterprise organisations, an integrative research approach combining different research methods and design should be implemented to improve generalisability.

This study applies a range of favoured approaches to evaluate “complex” public health interventions include systematic reviews, realist evaluation and quasi-experimental investigation. However, such evaluation approaches have rarely been applied before in the context of social enterprise.

The paper aims to assess the strengths and weaknesses of sustainable return on investment (SuROI) to determine it suitability as a means through which social value can be predicted in line with public procurement directives and the Social Value Act, whilst at the same time as fitting the developer’s business model and CSR commitments.

Using a multi-case design, findings from a comprehensive evaluation of three major housing-led mixed-use regeneration developments are presented. The three case study locations were selected on the basis of the developer’s strong commitment to place-making and social sustainability. Together with a strong strategic desire to reposition their organisation away from the traditional business as usual profit-led model.

Whilst the social return on investment methodology is applicable to the charity sector, its use in the built environment is highly questionable. When applying the model to the mixed-use housing projects, the authors identified a number of technical limitations to the model, inter alia a lack of suitable proxies and especially proxies relating to the built environment for the valuation of identified outcomes; the use of monetisation as a evaluating measure which did not support some of the more abstract or softer benefits identified; problems collecting, identifying and evaluating data to inform the model given the complexity and scale of the project; and significant time and expense associated with the valuation and finally the inability to benchmark the report on completion. These findings have implications for the social housing providers and local authorities looking to use SuROI to evaluate potential built environment projects.

The paper offers unique insights into the viability of using existing social value measurement methodologies. The paper identifies the significant limitations associated with the SuROI methodology.

The purpose of this paper is to describe and illustrate the use of the Engagement for Learning Framework developed through the Complex Learning Difficulties and Disabilities (CLDD) Research Project (2009-2011). The resources support mainstream and special educators to extend the engagement of learners with CLDD.

In total, 95 educational settings and 224 students took part across three phases of research (November 2009-March 2011) comprising a resource development phase and two trial phases in mainstream and special schools. The researchers used an exploratory, multiple case study approach and action research methodologies. A recent case study from Hamilton School, Birmingham, illustrates the Engagement for Learning Framework.

The resulting Engagement Profile and Scale data showed increases in engagement for similar proportions of the student cohort. Across the three phases, 81-85 per cent (mean: 83 per cent) increased their levels of engagement for learning, 2-9 per cent (mean: 5.3 per cent) showed no change, while 5.5-16 per cent (mean: 11.6 per cent) showed decreased levels of engagement. Descriptive data corroborated these scores.

This original research added value to existing work by developing resources for educators that enabled them to adapt activities to encourage students’ engagement in seven engagement areas (awareness, curiosity, investigation, discovery, anticipation, persistence and initiation). The resources enabled educators to score learner engagement over time to show progress and collected associated descriptive data.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how Barnardo's, a large children's charity, has developed a system for measuring and reporting on service user outcomes as part of its performance management approach. The challenges that confront third sector organisations when adopting this approach are summarised, as are the benefits that can accrue.

The paper's approach is to describe the development of an outcome monitoring tool (OMT) and to explore some of the benefits of and challenges to embedding this tool across Barnardo's services.

Third sector organisations operate in competitive, resource‐constrained environments, where funding arrangements are often short‐term and piecemeal. The ability to evidence the effectiveness of services through demonstrating positive outcomes for service users is becoming an increasingly important factor in the process of securing and sustaining funding. An outcome‐focused approach contributes to the development of excellent services by helping to ensure that services are making a difference to the people that use them. Barnardo's OMT offers a model for evidencing the impact of services on the people who use them, thus contributing to the organisation's competitive edge.

This paper is informed by current thinking on outcomes and evidence‐based practice and offers a practical example of how to implement an outcome‐focused approach in a third sector organisation.