Science impact
To what end are you working?
Presumably for the principle that science’s sole aim must be to lighten the burden of human existence.
If the scientists, brought to heel by self-interested rulers, limit themselves to piling up knowledge for knowledge’s sake, then science can be crippled and our new machines will lead to nothing but new impositions.
Berthold Brecht (1898–1956) Gallileo, Scene 14
The fundamental purpose of the scientific endeavour is change. Even the most basic or blue-sky research seeks to lay the foundations of knowledge that can one day be translated to the advantage of society. Yet, though fundamental, how science quantifies and understands impact is complex.
In general, most modern researchers will be familiar with impact assessments that tend to consider only the direct impacts, that is, in isolation of broader effects that might lie beyond their field of research, or that seem too theoretical.
Meanwhile, many research organisations have moved to a more integrated model of impact management. Unlike impact assessment, whereby impacts are considered in isolation of their broader context, impact management is a strategic approach to identifying benefits throughout the life of a research project or investment. While this move is welcomed, we argue that the current practices of research assessment and evaluation remain insufficiently focused on providing value to all stakeholders throughout the research value chain.
Most, if not all, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research nodes invest in a merit-based assessment which is grounded in technocratic, rather than a whole-of-research value chain, focus.1 In many instances – and unlike the social sciences – STEM scientists object to research funding being coupled to education or outreach efforts.2
In many instances – and unlike the social sciences – STEM scientists object to research funding
