About the EI Assessment

Introduction

In December 2015, as part of its National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA), the government announced the development of a national Engagement and Impact (EI) assessment, which will examine how universities are translating their research into economic, environmental, social and other benefits. EI 2018 aims to create incentives for greater collaboration between universities and industry, as well as other research end-users. EI 2018 is a companion exercise to Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) 2018, and data collected for ERA 2018 forms part of the EI 2018 assessment.

What do the results mean?

The ARC Indicator Principles

The following ten indicator principles, agreed on by the Steering Committee, were used to guide the development of the pilot methodology and set the framework for the EI 2018 assessment methodology:

• Robust and Objective — objective measures that meet a defined methodology that will reliably produce the same result, regardless of when and by whom the principles are applied.
• Internationally Recognised — while not all indicators will allow for direct international comparability, they must be internationally recognised measures of research engagement and impact. Indicators must be sensitive to a range of research types, including research relevant to different audiences.
• Comparability across disciplines — indicators will take into account disciplinary differences and be capable of identifying comparable levels of research engagement and impact.
• To Not Discourage Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Research — indicators will not discourage institutions from pursuing interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research engagement and impact.
• Research Relevant — indicators must be relevant to the research component of any discipline.
• Repeatable and Verifiable — indicators must be repeatable and based on transparent and publicly available methodologies.
• Time-bound — indicators must be specific to a particular period, as defined by the reference period.
• Transparent — should be possible for all data submitted against each indicator to be made publicly available, to ensure the transparency and integrity of the process and outcomes.
• Behavioural Impact — indicators should drive responses in a desirable direction and not result in perverse unintended consequences. They should also limit the scope for special interest groups or individuals to manipulate the system to their advantage.
• Adaptable — recognising that the measurement of engagement, and the assessment of impact over time, require adjustment of indicators for subsequent exercises.

Rating Scales

EI 2018 uses a three-point rating scale for the engagement and impact ratings.

• High
• Medium
• Low

Impact

Approach to impact

Engagement