讨论英国的影响力议程

The Impact Agenda Pub Date : 2020-05-13 DOI:10.2307/j.ctv11g95dd.9

Katherine E. Smith, J. Bandola-Gill, N. Meer, E. Stewart, R. Watermeyer

{"title":"讨论英国的影响力议程","authors":"Katherine E. Smith, J. Bandola-Gill, N. Meer, E. Stewart, R. Watermeyer","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv11g95dd.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter builds on the debates presented in chapters 1 and 2, providing a more in-depth assessment of critiques of the research impact agenda. This includes concerns expressed in the Stern review and debates regarding the possibility of applying ‘metrics’ to impact. It then considers how the impact agenda has been defended and amended in the context of these critiques.","PeriodicalId":378348,"journal":{"name":"The Impact Agenda","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Debating the UK impact agenda\",\"authors\":\"Katherine E. Smith, J. Bandola-Gill, N. Meer, E. Stewart, R. Watermeyer\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/j.ctv11g95dd.9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter builds on the debates presented in chapters 1 and 2, providing a more in-depth assessment of critiques of the research impact agenda. This includes concerns expressed in the Stern review and debates regarding the possibility of applying ‘metrics’ to impact. It then considers how the impact agenda has been defended and amended in the context of these critiques.\",\"PeriodicalId\":378348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Impact Agenda\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Impact Agenda\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11g95dd.9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Impact Agenda","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11g95dd.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本章建立在第1章和第2章中提出的辩论的基础上，对研究影响议程的批评进行了更深入的评估。这包括在斯特恩审查中表达的担忧，以及关于将“指标”应用于影响的可能性的辩论。然后考虑如何在这些批评的背景下捍卫和修改影响议程。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Debating the UK impact agenda

This chapter builds on the debates presented in chapters 1 and 2, providing a more in-depth assessment of critiques of the research impact agenda. This includes concerns expressed in the Stern review and debates regarding the possibility of applying ‘metrics’ to impact. It then considers how the impact agenda has been defended and amended in the context of these critiques.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

The Impact Agenda

自引率

0.00%

发文量