WorldCat Identities

Wooding, Steven

Overview
Works: 44 works in 93 publications in 1 language and 1,574 library holdings
Genres: Case studies  Handbooks and manuals  Conference papers and proceedings 
Roles: Author, Editor
Classifications: Q180.G7, 370.78041
Publication Timeline
.
Most widely held works by Steven Wooding
Project retrosight : understanding the returns from cardiovascular and stroke research : the policy report by Steven Wooding( )

12 editions published in 2011 in English and held by 1,090 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

This project explores the impacts arising from cardiovascular and stroke research funded 15-20 years ago and attempts to draw out aspects of the research, researcher or environment that are associated with high or low impact. The project is a case study-based review of 29 cardiovascular and stroke research grants, funded in Australia, Canada and UK between 1989 and 1993. The case studies focused on the individual grants but considered the development of the investigators and ideas involved in the research projects from initiation to the present day. Grants were selected through a stratified random selection approach that aimed to include both high- and low-impact grants. The key messages are as follows: 1) The cases reveal that a large and diverse range of impacts arose from the 29 grants studied. 2) There are variations between the impacts derived from basic biomedical and clinical research. 3) There is no correlation between knowledge production and wider impacts 4) The majority of economic impacts identified come from a minority of projects. 5) We identified factors that appear to be associated with high and low impact. This report presents the key observations of the study and an overview of the methods involved. It has been written for funders of biomedical and health research and health services, health researchers, and policy makers in those fields. It will also be of interest to those involved in research and impact evaluation
Assessing research : the researchers' view by Steven Wooding( Book )

11 editions published between 2003 and 2004 in English and held by 169 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

This report, prepared for and funded by the Joint Funding Bodies' Review of Research Assessment, presents findings from a series of nine facilitated workshops held with academics and research managers across the United Kingdom (UK) in December 2002. The objective of the workshops was to investigate views of research quality and attitudes towards different models of research assessment. The report outlines the recurring themes and issues raised by the 142 participants in the workshops. The participants, academics and research managers, represented over one third of the 173 institutions that submitted to the Research Assessment Exercise in 2001. This report will be of interest to those concerned with research assessment and evaluation in academic research, both practitioners and policy makers. In the first workshop task, participants considered the characteristics of high quality research and how it should be assessed. In the second task, participants discussed the strengths and weaknesses of four approaches to research assessment: Expert Review, Algorithms, Historical Ratings, and Self Assessment. In the remaining two tasks, participants were asked to design their ideal assessment system, basing it on one of the approaches examined in Task 2. They then considered how their system would be implemented, what its weak points might be, and how its use would change research culture in UK higher education. The overwhelming majority of the workshop participants felt that research should be assessed using a system based on peer review by subject-based panels. Of the 29 systems designed, 25 were based on Expert Review. The participants also indicated that these panels should be informed by metrics and self-assessment, with some input from research users. The first volume of this report describes the methodology and details the findings of the workshops. The second volume contains additional source data. (66 tables, 1 figure)
The returns from arthritis research by Steven Wooding( Book )

6 editions published in 2004 in English and held by 140 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

There is increasing pressure for research funders to demonstrate, and seek to maximise, the payback from the research they fund. This report, prepared for and funded by the Arthritis Research Campaign (arc), presents the results of an evaluation of 16 research grants awarded by arc in the early 1990s. The main objective was to develop a system for evaluating arthritis research, with a view to allowing arc to stimulate and manage the exploitation of research advances so that they translate into outcomes of practical benefit to people with arthritis. The report presents a framework that conceptualises the relationship between research inputs, process, output and outcomes. Using this framework, we catalogue a diverse range of research output and outcomes arising from these 16 grants and make a series of quantitative and qualitative assessments comparing, for example, payback from project grants versus programme grants. In conclusion, we make six observations: --There is a diversity of research payback. --The researcher is the key driver of research translation. --Short, focused project grants seem to provide value for money. --Intended and unintended flexibility in funding is used advantageously. --Referees' contributions to the peer-review process are of variable benefit. --The payback framework could be operationalised and embedded by arc. The companion Volume 2 is a collection of the case studies. These case studies all follow a similar format based on the conceptual model and provide a rich and detailed narrative on the payback of each research grant
RAND electronically distributed documents( )

2 editions published in 2005 in English and held by 18 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Talking policy : an examination of public dialogue in science and technology policy by Steven Wooding( )

5 editions published in 2005 in English and held by 14 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

This report makes recommendations for how public consultation can be fed into policy debates in science and technology. The UK based study draws from four case studies and a twenty-two respondent web survey. The case studies were the public dialogue activities run for the 2003 Energy White Paper; those around the use of sex selection organised by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; those surrounding the UK BioBank, a population biomedical sample collection; and three run by the Food Standards Agency. There were recommendations for policy centred around four themes. Firstly, preserving capacity, that of the public to engage in consultations and of contractors to provide the consultations needed. Secondly, clarity and planning, that there needed to be clarity in how the consultation could affect policy and all possible outcomes needed to be considered. Thirdly, synthesis of policy, that organisations should reflect on the transparency of their policy process when combining numerous streams of evidence. Finally, evaluation and learning, that there was little external evaluation of projects or explicit sharing of lessons learned
Measuring research : a guide to research evaluation frameworks and tools by Susan Guthrie( )

2 editions published in 2013 in English and held by 12 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Interest in and demand for the evaluation of research is increasing internationally. This is linked to a growing accountability agenda, driven by the demand for good governance and management growing in profile on national and international stages and fiscal austerity in a number of countries. There is a need to show that policymaking is evidence based and, particularly in the current economic climate, to demonstrate accountability for the investment of public funds in research. This is complemented by a shift in emphasis from purely summative evaluations, which have traditionally characterized the assessment of research, to more formative evaluations, as well as more comprehensive evaluations that cover wider outputs from research outside the standard measures, such as numbers and quality of publications. Given this growing need for effective and appropriate evaluation of research, it is increasingly important to understand how research can and should be evaluated in different contexts and to meet different needs. This report provides a guide to the key considerations in developing an approach to research evaluation. It outlines the trade-offs that have to be taken into account and the contextual factors that need to be understood, drawing on experience of international approaches to research evaluation. In addition, a detailed overview of six research evaluation frameworks is provided, along with a brief overview of a further eight frameworks, and discussion of the main tools used in research evaluation
In search of the Holy Grail : understanding research success by Jonathan Grant( )

3 editions published in 2010 in English and held by 11 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

This paper considers the continuing challenges facing research funders when trying to allocate research money. It focuses on the area of research policy in mental health research funding, with a particular emphasis on funding for schizophrenia research, and provides an overview of research policy in the last 20-25 years. It then goes on to consider what approaches funders could take to build an evidence base to support future decisions about funding. An earlier version of this paper was used to stimulate thinking prior to a workshop hosted by the Graham Boeckh Foundation in Montreal on 21 and 22 April 2009 to discuss these issues
100 metrics to assess and communicate the value of biomedical research : an ideas book by Susan Guthrie( )

3 editions published in 2016 in English and held by 10 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Biomedical research affects society in many ways. It has been shown to improve health, create jobs, add to our knowledge, and foster new collaborations. Despite the complexity of modern research, many of the metrics used to evaluate the impacts of research still focus on the traditional, often academic, part of the research pathway, covering areas such as the amount of grant funding received and the number of peer-reviewed publications. In response to increasing expectations of accountability and transparency, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), in collaboration with RAND Europe, undertook a project to help communicate the wider value of biomedical research. The initiative developed resources to support academic medical centers in evaluating the outcomes and impacts of their research using approaches relevant to various stakeholders, including patients, providers, administrators, and legislators. This report presents 100 ideas for metrics that can be used assess and communicate the value of biomedical research. The list is not comprehensive, and the metrics are not fully developed, but they should serve to stimulate and broaden thinking about how academic medical centers can communicate the value of their research to a broad range of stakeholders
Mapping the impact : exploring the payback of arthritis research( )

2 editions published in 2009 in English and held by 9 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Working with RAND Europe, ARC set out to develop a new survey system that would provide an overview of the research ARC funds through an information-gathering tool (survey instrument) that would be quick and easy for researchers to complete. This overview would inform ARC's future funding strategy and provide a foundation for more detailed evaluation work. The work built on earlier detailed case study research carried out for ARC by RAND Europe, investigating how ARC funded research led to patient benefit
The returns from arthritis research by Steven Wooding( Book )

4 editions published in 2004 in English and held by 8 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

There is increasing pressure for research funders to demonstrate, and seek to maximise, the payback from the research they fund. This report, prepared for and funded by the Arthritis Research Campaign (arc), presents the results of an evaluation of 16 research grants awarded by arc in the early 1990s. The main objective was to develop a system for evaluating arthritis research, with a view to allowing arc to stimulate and manage the exploitation of research advances so that they translate into outcomes of practical benefit to people with arthritis. The report presents a framework that conceptualises the relationship between research inputs, process, output and outcomes. Using this framework, we catalogue a diverse range of research output and outcomes arising from these 16 grants and make a series of quantitative and qualitative assessments comparing, for example, payback from project grants versus programme grants. In conclusion, we make six observations: --There is a diversity of research payback. --The researcher is the key driver of research translation. --Short, focused project grants seem to provide value for money. --Intended and unintended flexibility in funding is used advantageously. --Referees' contributions to the peer-review process are of variable benefit. --The payback framework could be operationalised and embedded by arc. The companion Volume 2 is a collection of the case studies. These case studies all follow a similar format based on the conceptual model and provide a rich and detailed narrative on the payback of each research grant
Strengthening research portfolio evaluation at the Medical Research Council : developing a survey for the collection of information about research outputs by Sharif Ismail( )

3 editions published in 2010 in English and held by 8 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

The Medical Research Council (MRC) wished to better understand the wider impact of MRC research output on society and the economy. The MRC wanted to: compare the strengths of different types of funding and areas of research; identify the good news stories and successes it can learn from. As an initial step in this process RAND Europe: (1) examined the range of output and outcome information MRC already collected; and (2) to used that analysis to suggest how data collection could be improved. This report outlines the approach taken to the second part of this exercise and focuses on the development of a new survey instrument to support the MRC's data collection approach. Readers should bear in mind that some later stages of survey development and implementation were conducted exclusively by the MRC and are not reported here
Capturing research impacts : a review of international practice( Book )

1 edition published in 2010 in English and held by 7 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

In February 2009, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) commissioned RAND Europe to review approaches to evaluating the impact of research as part of their wider work programme to develop new arrangements for the assessment and funding of research -- referred to as the Research Excellence Framework (REF). The objectives were 1) to review international practice in assessing research impact and 2) to identify relevant challenges, lessons and observations from international practice that help HEFCE develop a framework for assessing research impact. The report presents the findings of our review, based on four case study examples of impact evaluation approaches: the Australian RQF, the UK RAISS method, the US PART framework and the Dutch ERiC framework
Health research evaluation frameworks : an international comparison by Philipp-Bastian Brutscher( )

1 edition published in 2008 in English and held by 6 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

This report is based upon, and summarizes findings from eight research evaluation frameworks in use in the UK, Sweden, the US, the Netherlands, in Canada, and elsewhere. This report identifies and discusses four rationales for research evaluation. It argues that research evaluation (if well designed and implemented) provides the ability to: 1. Hold researchers, funding bodies and/or policy-makers better accountable for their action; 2. Steer research into a desired direction; 3. Signal ability on the part of researchers (for example to show that they are worth funding); and 4. Provide input into the research management process (helping to improve strategy definition, etc)
A historical reflection on research evaluation studies, their recurrent themes and challenges by Sonja Marjanovic( Book )

1 edition published in 2009 in English and held by 6 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

This report presents a historical reflection on research evaluation studies, their recurrent themes and challenges, and their implications. It critically examines studies of how scientific research drives innovation and socioeconomic benefits
The Returns from Arthritis Research. Volume 1: Approach Analysis and Recommendations by Stephen Hanney( )

3 editions published in 2004 in English and held by 5 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

There is increasing pressure for research funders to demonstrate, and seek to maximize, the payback from the research they fund. This report, prepared for and funded by the Arthritis Research Campaign (ARC), presents the results of an evaluation of 16 research grants awarded by ARC in the early 1990s. The main objective was to develop a system for evaluating arthritis research, with a view to allowing arc to stimulate and manage the exploitation of research advances so that they translate into outcomes of practical benefit to people with arthritis. The report presents a framework that conceptualizes the relationship between research inputs, process, output and outcomes. Using this framework, we catalogue a diverse range of research output and outcomes arising from these 16 grants and make a series of quantitative and qualitative assessments comparing, for example, payback from project grants versus programme grants. In conclusion, we make six observations: --There is a diversity of research payback. --The researcher is the key driver of research translation. --Short, focused project grants seem to provide value for money. --Intended and unintended flexibility in funding is used advantageously. --Referees' contributions to the peer-review process are of variable benefit. --The payback framework could be operationalized and embedded by ARC. The companion Volume 2 is a collection of the case studies. These case studies all follow a similar format based on the conceptual model and provide a rich and detailed narrative on the payback of each research grant
Evaluating grant peer review in the health sciences : a review of the literature by Sharif Ismail( Book )

1 edition published in 2009 in English and held by 5 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

More than 95% of the £2 billion of public funding for medical research each year in the UK is allocated by peer review. Long viewed as a respected process of quality assurance for research, grant peer review has lately been criticised by a growing number of people within the scientific community and without. Detractors highlight its perceived inefficiency, and structural flaws that compromise its effectiveness in allocating funding. This report presents the findings of a wide-ranging literature review to evaluate these criticisms. It concludes with a short discussion of simple modifications to the peer review process that might help to address some of them. The research for the report was conducted with funding support from RAND Europe's Health R & D Policy Research Unit with the Department of Health (England). It is available in English only
Mental health retrosight : understanding the returns from research : (lessons from schizophrenia) : policy report by Steven Wooding( )

1 edition published in 2013 in English and held by 4 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

This report examines the impacts arising from neuroscience and mental health research going back 20-25 years, and identifies attributes of the research, researchers or research setting that are associated with translation into patient benefit, in the particular case of schizophrenia. The study combined two methods: forward-tracing case studies to examine where scientific advances of 20 years ago have led to impact today; and backwardtracing perspectives to identify the research antecedents of today's interventions in schizophrenia. These research and impact trails are followed principally in Canada, the UK and the USA. The headline findings are as follows: 1. The case studies and perspectives support the view that mental health research has led to a diverse and beneficial range of academic, health, social and economic impacts over the 20 years since the research was undertaken. 2. Clinical research has had a larger impact on patient care than basic research has over the 20 years since the research was undertaken. 3. Those involved in mental health research who work across boundaries are associated with wider health and social benefits. 4. Committed individuals, motivated by patient need, who effectively champion research agendas and/or translation into practice are key in driving the development and implementation of interventions
Alternatives to peer review in research project funding : 2013 update by Susan Guthrie( Book )

1 edition published in 2013 in English and held by 4 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Peer review is often considered the gold standard for reviewing research proposals. However, it is not always the best methodology for every research funding process. Public and private funders that support research as wide-ranging as basic science, defence technology and social science use a diverse set of strategies to advance knowledge in their respective fields. This report highlights a range of approaches that offer alternatives to, or modifications of, traditional peer review ⁰́₃ alternatives that address many of the shortcomings in peer review effectiveness and efficiency. The appropriateness of these different approaches will depend on the funder⁰́₉s organisational structure and mission, the type of research they wish to fund, as well as short- and long-term financial constraints. We hope that the information presented in this pack of cards will inspire experimentation amongst research funders by showing how the research funding process can be changed, and give funders the confidence to try novel methods by explaining where and how similar approaches have been used previously. We encourage funders to be as inquisitive about their funding systems as they are about the research they support and make changes in ways that can be subsequently evaluated, for instance using randomised controlled trials. 1 Such an approach would allow researchers to learn more about the effects of different methods of funding and, over time, to improve their knowledge of the most effective ways to support research
Mental Health Retrosight : perspectives by Alexandra Pollitt( Book )

1 edition published in 2013 in English and held by 3 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

This study examines the impacts arising from neuroscience and mental health research going back 20⁰́₃25 years, and identifies attributes of the research, researchers or research setting that are associated with translation into patient benefit, in the particular case of schizophrenia. This report presents the full set of forward-tracing case studies. The study combined two methods: forward-tracing case studies to examine where scientific advances of 20 years ago have led to impact today; and backward-tracing perspectives to identify the research antecedents of today⁰́₉s interventions in schizophrenia. These research and impact trails are followed principally in Canada, the UK and the USA. The headline findings are as follows: 1. The case studies and perspectives support the view that mental health research has led to a diverse and beneficial range of academic, health, social and economic impacts over the 20 years since the research was undertaken. 2. Clinical research has had a larger impact on patient care than basic research has over the 20 years since the research was undertaken. 3. Those involved in mental health research who work across boundaries are associated with wider health and social benefits. 4. Committed individuals, motivated by patient need, who effectively champion research agendas and/or translation into practice are key in driving the development and implementation of interventions
Assessing Research: The Researchers' View( )

2 editions published in 2003 in English and held by 3 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

This report, prepared for and funded by the Joint Funding Bodies' Review of Research Assessment, presents findings from a series of nine facilitated workshops held with academics and research managers across the United Kingdom (UK) in December 2002. The objective of the workshops was to investigate views of research quality and attitudes towards different models of research assessment. The report outlines the recurring themes and issues raised by the 142 participants in the workshops. The participants, academics and research managers, represented over one third of the 173 institutions that submitted to the Research Assessment Exercise in 2001. This report will be of interest to those concerned with research assessment and evaluation in academic research, both practitioners and policy makers. In the first workshop task, participants considered the characteristics of high quality research and how it should be assessed. In the second task, participants discussed the strengths and weaknesses of four approaches to research assessment: Expert Review, Algorithms, Historical Ratings, and Self Assessment. In the remaining two tasks, participants were asked to design their ideal assessment system, basing it on one of the approaches examined in Task 2. They then considered how their system would be implemented, what its weak points might be, and how its use would change research culture in UK higher education. The overwhelming majority of the workshop participants felt that research should be assessed using a system based on peer review by subject-based panels. Of the 29 systems designed, 25 were based on Expert Review. The participants also indicated that these panels should be informed by metrics and self-assessment, with some input from research users. The first volume of this report describes the methodology and details the findings of the workshops. The second volume contains additional source data. (17 figures)
 
moreShow More Titles
fewerShow Fewer Titles
Audience Level
0
Audience Level
1
  Kids General Special  
Audience level: 0.30 (from 0.17 for Project re ... to 0.88 for Assessing ...)

Assessing research : the researchers' view
Covers
Languages
English (65)