63 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
63 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
||
|
|
date: '2022-11-27T13:34:08'
|
||
|
|
hypothesis-meta:
|
||
|
|
created: '2022-11-27T13:34:08.086172+00:00'
|
||
|
|
document:
|
||
|
|
title:
|
||
|
|
- OP-SCIP190035 895..905
|
||
|
|
flagged: false
|
||
|
|
group: __world__
|
||
|
|
hidden: false
|
||
|
|
id: K04A5G5YEe2Wv4uzp_WNKQ
|
||
|
|
links:
|
||
|
|
html: https://hypothes.is/a/K04A5G5YEe2Wv4uzp_WNKQ
|
||
|
|
incontext: https://hyp.is/K04A5G5YEe2Wv4uzp_WNKQ/viduketha.nsf.gov.lk:8585/FJDB_NSF/Science_and_Public_Policy/Vol.46(6)-2019/scz037.pdf
|
||
|
|
json: https://hypothes.is/api/annotations/K04A5G5YEe2Wv4uzp_WNKQ
|
||
|
|
permissions:
|
||
|
|
admin:
|
||
|
|
- acct:ravenscroftj@hypothes.is
|
||
|
|
delete:
|
||
|
|
- acct:ravenscroftj@hypothes.is
|
||
|
|
read:
|
||
|
|
- group:__world__
|
||
|
|
update:
|
||
|
|
- acct:ravenscroftj@hypothes.is
|
||
|
|
tags:
|
||
|
|
- comprehensive impact
|
||
|
|
- researchers
|
||
|
|
target:
|
||
|
|
- selector:
|
||
|
|
- end: 3492
|
||
|
|
start: 3029
|
||
|
|
type: TextPositionSelector
|
||
|
|
- exact: ' increasing body of research analytically exploresthe consequences of
|
||
|
|
the research impact agenda on academic work,including the risks posed to research
|
||
|
|
quality (Chubb and Reed2018), prioritising of short-term impacts rather than
|
||
|
|
more concep-tual impacts (Greenhalgh and Fahy 2015; Meagher and Martin2017),
|
||
|
|
ethical risks (Smith and Stewart 2017), and a focus on indi-vidual academics
|
||
|
|
rather than on the broader context of research-based policy change (Dunlop
|
||
|
|
2018)'
|
||
|
|
prefix: ge production(Phillips 2010). An
|
||
|
|
suffix: .The sources of tension embedded
|
||
|
|
type: TextQuoteSelector
|
||
|
|
source: http://viduketha.nsf.gov.lk:8585/FJDB_NSF/Science_and_Public_Policy/Vol.46(6)-2019/scz037.pdf
|
||
|
|
text: Lots of papers write about the effect that the UK's focus on comprehensive
|
||
|
|
impact affects the quality of research and individual researchers
|
||
|
|
updated: '2022-11-27T13:34:08.086172+00:00'
|
||
|
|
uri: http://viduketha.nsf.gov.lk:8585/FJDB_NSF/Science_and_Public_Policy/Vol.46(6)-2019/scz037.pdf
|
||
|
|
user: acct:ravenscroftj@hypothes.is
|
||
|
|
user_info:
|
||
|
|
display_name: James Ravenscroft
|
||
|
|
in-reply-to: http://viduketha.nsf.gov.lk:8585/FJDB_NSF/Science_and_Public_Policy/Vol.46(6)-2019/scz037.pdf
|
||
|
|
tags:
|
||
|
|
- comprehensive impact
|
||
|
|
- researchers
|
||
|
|
- hypothesis
|
||
|
|
type: annotation
|
||
|
|
url: /annotations/2022/11/27/1669556048
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<blockquote> increasing body of research analytically exploresthe consequences of the research impact agenda on academic work,including the risks posed to research quality (Chubb and Reed2018), prioritising of short-term impacts rather than more concep-tual impacts (Greenhalgh and Fahy 2015; Meagher and Martin2017), ethical risks (Smith and Stewart 2017), and a focus on indi-vidual academics rather than on the broader context of research-based policy change (Dunlop 2018)</blockquote>Lots of papers write about the effect that the UK's focus on comprehensive impact affects the quality of research and individual researchers
|