Academic identity at the intersection of global scientific communities and national science policies: societal impact in the UK and Netherlands

This article investigates attitudes to societal impact of research as an entry point into understanding academic identities. Conceptually, we position academic identity at the intersection of global scientific fields and national science policies. We argue that the degree of alignment or misalignment between the two can create coherent academic identities, or on the contrary, tensions in academics’ identity. Empirically, we use the disciplines of philosophy and anthropology as proxies for scientific fields in the social sciences and humanities (SSH). The study is based on sixteen semi-structured interviews with mid-career philosophers and anthropologists in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, and an analysis of how societal impact is positioned in the two national evaluation systems. We conclude that ‘coercive’ national impact policies (like the one in the UK) are less likely to be aligned with global disciplinary norms in the SSH and therefore create tensions in academic identity; these can undermine academics’ agency and be counterproductive in terms of reaching policy objectives. By contrast, ‘enabling’ national impact policies (like the one in the Netherlands) are conducive to more coherent academic identities that are better aligned with disciplinary notions of societal impact. By discussing academic identities in a comparative context, the study highlights the struggles of reconciling disciplinary and national notions of societal impact. To realise the potential societal impact of academic research, we recommend that impact is integrated into a wider ecosystem of interactions where policy-driven notions are aligned with disciplinary norms and values

How universities influence societal impact practices:Academics’ sense-making of organizational impact strategies

Societal impact of academic research has become a central concern of contemporary science policies. As key players in the higher education sector, universities play a crucial role in translating policy into organizational strategies, which then have the potential to shape academics' practices. This article investigates the influence that universities may have on academics' impact practices. We employ an analytical framework that combines a novel method for studying university impact strategies, sense-making theory, and insights from literature on impact. Our data consist of interviews with sixteen philosophers and anthropologists working across four universities in the Netherlands and the UK. We find that, in response to organizational goals and Human Resource Management policies, academics report changing their impact practices. We call for universities to use their influence responsibly in order to enable a broad range of impact practices

From ‘productive interactions’ to ‘enabling conditions’:The role of organizations in generating societal impact of academic research

Societal impact of academic research has been high on both policy and scientific agendas for several decades. Scholars increasingly focus on processes when analyzing societal impact, often inspired by the concept of 'productive interactions'. Building on this concept, we assert that processes do not take place in isolation. Rather, we suggest that productive interactions emerge in environments that offer conditions for these interactions to occur. This special section brings together three papers that focus on 'enabling conditions' that organizations provide to enable societal impact

Putting health status guided COPD management to the test:protocol of the MARCH study

BACKGROUND: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a disease state characterized by airflow limitation that is not fully reversible and usually progressive. Current guidelines, among which the Dutch, have so far based their management strategy mainly on lung function impairment as measured by FEV(1), while it is well known that FEV(1) has a poor correlation with almost all features of COPD that matter to patients. Based on this discrepancy the GOLD 2011 update included symptoms and impact in their treatment algorithm proposal. Health status measures capture both symptoms and impact and could therefore be used as a standardized way to capture the information a doctor could otherwise only collect by careful history taking and recording. We hypothesize that a treatment algorithm that is based on a simple validated 10 item health status questionnaire, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), improves health status (as measured by SGRQ) and classical COPD outcomes like exacerbation frequency, patient satisfaction and health care utilization compared to usual care based on guidelines. METHODS/DESIGN: This hypothesis will be tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) following 330 patients for two years. During this period general practitioners will receive treatment advices every four months that are based on the patient’s health status (in half of the patients, intervention group) or on lung function (the remaining half of the patients, usual care group). DISCUSSION: During the design process, the selection of outcomes and the development of the treatment algorithm were challenging. This is discussed in detail in the manuscript to facilitate researchers in designing future studies in this changing field of implementation research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NTR264

Validity of instruments to measure physical activity may be questionable due to a lack of conceptual frameworks: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Regulators' guidance documents for the development and validation of patient reported outcomes (PROs) advise the use of conceptual frameworks, which outline the structure of the concept that a PRO aims to measure. It is unknown if currently available PROs are based on conceptual frameworks. This study, limited to a specific case, aimed (i) to identify conceptual frameworks of physical activity in chronic respiratory patients or similar populations (chronic heart disease patients or the elderly), and (ii) to assess if the development and validation of PROs to measure physical activity in these populations were based on a conceptual framework of physical activity. METHODS: Two systematic reviews were conducted through search in Medline, Embase, Psychinfo, and Cinahl databases up to January 2010. RESULTS: In the first review only 2 references, identified from 581 references about physical activity in the defined populations, provided a conceptual framework of physical activity in COPD patients. In the second review, out of 103 studies developing PROs to measure physical activity or related constructs, none of them was based on a conceptual framework of physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings raise concerns about how the large body of evidence from studies that use physical activity PRO instruments should be evaluated by health care providers, guideline developers, and regulatory bodies