Researchfish – Little Fish in a Big Pond

When one is awarded a grant by a major research body, obviously accountability is a fishmosaicvery important consideration.  To that end, activities have to be logged on the poetically-named but very definitely serious Researchfish website.  All big scholarly funders use it, asking for details of such matters as publications arising out of the research, further funding, engagement activities (there’s quite a bit I can enter here!) and so on.

At first sight, it’s a bit intimidating, but once I’d downloaded a list of “Common Outcome Types with sub-types”, and crossed out the columns in which no-one would remotely expect me to have outputs (Medical Products, Interventions and Clinical Trials, or such Research Tools as Biological samples, or human models of mechanisms or symptoms), it didn’t look quite so bad.  I do feel a bit like a little fish in a big pond compared to people winning major awards to find cures for horrific diseases, design new space rockets, or solve the greater political and social conundrums of our age.  Still, one has to start somewhere!

So, my activity for the rest of today will be to go through the list I’ve already compiled, and add the various presentations, blogs and guest-blogposts, and so on, and just see how far I get!  For one-and-a-half days a week over 13 months, it looks okay – well, in my opinion, at any rate!  As I’ve said often enough before, watch this space.

 

 

Research Impact in Library Land

I’m reading a book about research impact at the moment.   (We have a copy in the library, but I’ve also got it on Kindle, so I have no excuse not to plough right through it!)  I must admit, there are moments when I metaphorically kick myself under the table, because some of the advice is basically common sense.  But, if it’s common sense, why didn’t I think of it?  So it’s a good idea to get reminded of the obvious things whilst simultaneously getting plenty of fresh ideas, and just generally making sure that impact is built into this research network right from the very start.

So, here are the first questions, quoted directly from my new guru (Mark S. Reed, author of the Research Impact Handbook, pp.72-73):-

  • “What aspects of [our] research might be interesting or useful to someone?…”
  • “Could [our] research help address these needs [ie, issues, policy areas … trends]?”
  • Can our research help remove barriers that are currently inhibiting these areas?
  • If we know who might benefit from our research, can we identify “what aspects of [our] research they are likely to be most interested in?” Could we make it even more relevant?
  • So, what changes could our research effect?
  • And do we know who would benefit and who we should guard against disadvantaging?

Please don’t leave these questions hanging in the air! I’m looking for answers, and I’m keen to engage with other researchers interested in similar issues in this curious world where musicology, book history and library history meet with legal deposit on the one hand, and individual music-makers on the other.  Do share your views!