For example, Jensen et al. (2021) emphasized that high-quality research impact evaluations should integrate evidence-based methods to ensure societal benefits.
[14] In July 2010 (following the May 2010 general election), the Universities and Science minister David Willetts announced that the REF will be delayed by a year in order to assess the efficacy of the impact measure.
[17] REF's impact is defined as "an effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia".
[18] Recent studies have emphasized the importance of using evidence-based approaches to evaluate research impact to ensure it delivers tangible societal benefits.
Jensen, Reed, and Gerber (2021) proposed a framework that integrates scholarship and practice to optimize the translation of research into real-world outcomes.
The 3i framework (Interests, Influence, and Impact) by Reed, Jensen, and Noles (2025) offers a structured approach to identifying and prioritizing stakeholders in decision-making processes, thereby maximizing the effectiveness of research applications beyond academia.
[21] In addition, a critical lens on engagement practices has been proposed by Reed, Merkle, and Cook (2024), who argue that moving beyond the traditional stakeholder model allows for a more equitable distribution of research benefits, addressing systemic imbalances and amplifying marginalized voices.
[22] These diverse approaches demonstrate the evolving understanding of research impact and underline the importance of robust, interdisciplinary methods to maximize its reach and effectiveness.
[citation needed] Another area of criticism, which the REF inherited from the structure of the RAE, is that for most full-time staff members submission normally consists of four published 'research output items'.
[citation needed] The Times Higher Education also revealed that some universities appeared to be "gaming" the REF system.
[citation needed] In July 2016, Lord Nicholas Stern's review was published, drafting general guidelines for the next REF in 2021.
Crowdfunding for research has two advantages: one, it is a source for a relatively high guaranteed funding, with a rate of around 50%, second, it is a very effective tool to engage with the general public.
The problem occurs, because qualitative judgments of the significance and reach of the impact (without an account of the underlying method) cement contemporary values into the assessment, as such; "[…] call it socially constructed, mutual learning, social practice whatever, the key is that we can’t separate characteristics of Impact from the process imposed on value and recognise it as such."
(Derrick, 2018:160)[36] When checking the reference of current claims, these were either not accessible (e.g. the relevant websites were taken down), referenced in such a way that it didn't reflect self-authorship or testimonials of individuals connected to the researcher (Brauer, 2018:142-147).