Understanding the relative valuation of research impact: a best-worst scaling experiment of the general public and biomedical and health researchers

Pollitt, Alexandra, Potoglou, Dimitris ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3060-7674, Patil, Sunil, Burge, Peter, Guthrie, Susan, King, Suzanne, Wooding, Steven and Grant, Jonathan 2016. Understanding the relative valuation of research impact: a best-worst scaling experiment of the general public and biomedical and health researchers. BMJ Open 6 (8) , e010916. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010916

Preview	PDF - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (1MB) | Preview
Preview	PDF (Supplementary File 1: Best Worst Scaling method) - Supplemental Material Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (498kB) | Preview
Preview	PDF (Supplementary File 2: Defining and categorising the impacts of biomedical and health research) - Supplemental Material Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (855kB) | Preview
Preview	PDF (Supplementary File 3: Constructing and testing the survey instrument) - Accepted Post-Print Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial. Download (386kB) | Preview
Preview	PDF (Supplementary File 4 – Survey questionnaires) - Supplemental Material Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (460kB) | Preview
Preview	PDF (Supplementary File 5: Additional information on the final model) - Supplemental Material Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (612kB) | Preview

Abstract

Objectives: (1) To test the use of Best Worst Scaling (BWS) experiments in valuing different types of biomedical and health research impact, and (2) to explore how different types of research impact are valued by different stakeholder groups. Design: Survey-based BWS experiment and discrete choice modelling. Setting: United Kingdom. Participants: Current and recent UK Medical Research Council grant holders and a representative sample of the general public recruited from an online panel. Results: In relation to the study’s two objectives: (1) We demonstrate the application of BWS methodology in the quantitative assessment and valuation of research impact. (2) The general public and researchers provided similar valuations for research impacts such as improved life expectancy, job creation and reduced health costs, but there was less agreement between the groups on other impacts, including commercial capacity development, training and dissemination. Conclusion: This is the second time that a discrete choice experiment has been used to assess how the general public and researchers value different types of research impact, and the first time that BWS has been used to elicit these choices. While the two groups value different research impacts in different ways, we note that where they agree, this is generally about matters that are seemingly more important and associated with wider social benefit, rather than impacts occurring within the research system. These findings are a first step in exploring how the beneficiaries and producers of research value different kinds of impact, an important consideration given the growing emphasis on funding and assessing research on the basis of (potential) impact. Future research should refine and replicate both the current study and that of Miller et al. (2013) in other countries and disciplines. Strengths

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Geography and Planning (GEOPL)
Subjects:	R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Publisher:	BMJ Publishing Group
ISSN:	2044-6055
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	28 July 2016
Date of Acceptance:	13 July 2016
Last Modified:	11 Oct 2023 19:29
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/93405

Citation Data

Cited 16 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item