The Subject Portals Project

Students who have grown up in the digital age have certain expectations for learning in Higher Education (HE). “Using a complex mix of virtual and face-to-face environments, personal and institutional technologies, learners of all ages are developing new working practices around the technologies available to them. Increasingly, they look for flexibility and openness in the institutional policies and provision that support their learning.” (JISC, 2007). The divide between the institutional eLearning provision and the expectations of students who have grown up in a digital world was highlighted through the UK eLearning benchmarking exercise. Institutional eLearning provision and processes within the HE sector were investigated and analysed through this exercise, which was led by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) in collaboration with the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). This paper presents the experience of two UK Universities, Bournemouth and Reading, whose participation in the benchmarking exercise provides examples of institutional provision. Subsequent Pathfinder funding enabled them to build on their strengths with projects aimed at narrowing the divide between student expectations of eLearning and institutional provision. The eRes: Innovative eLearning with e-Resources project (Bournemouth) encourages students to use quality e-resources in their learning. The “Driving Institutional Reform: Exploring Change with Technology” (DIRECT) project (Reading) has developed a framework to transform its internal quality management processes.

The JUBILEE project (JISC User Behaviour in Information Seeking: Longitudinal Evaluation of EIS) was set up at the University of Northumbria in response to a Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) call for a qualitative longitudinal monitoring of Electronic Information Services (EIS) in the United Kingdom. The issue of EIS performancein support of Higher Education (HE) is of growing concern today. Because HE institutions commit more revenue to systems and services, there is a need to find ways by which to assess the value of EIS. One of the most valid measures is user satisfaction. An importantattribute of JUBILEE's holistic method is that it affords a formal approach to the collection and presentation of users' opinions of EIS. JUBILEE will be collecting and collating data on user information-seeking behaviour over a period of time and in a variety of disciplines. The longitudinal tracking of users in JUBILEE will highlight success criteria for information seeking from the users' viewpoint. This article describes early results and background information from the first cycle of the project.

This article provides an overview of work undertaken by JISC to encourage development of digital preservation environments for data in the UK. Work done to date by JISC has shown how important collaboration is for digital preservation and the importance of not focussing on digital preservation as an end in itself but as a means to an end: longevity for and ongoing access to essential resources of value to many difference user communities.

The ubiquity of networked and social technologies provides an environment within which new approaches to knowledge sharing and co-construction have flourished. This trend in knowledge co-construction is taking place within a society that increasingly is open. One of the most visible manifestations of emerging approaches to knowledge sharing within the formal education domain is the discourse around Open Educational Resources (OER). OER have been defined as, “digitised materials offered freely and openly for educators, students and self-learners to use and reuse for teaching, learning and research” (OECD, 2007). Ideas around OER originated around 2002 through the Education Program strategic plan of the Hewlett Foundation on Using Information Technology to Increase Access to High-Quality Educational Content (Atkins, Brown, & Hammond, 2007) and the MIT Open CourseWare initiative (see the chapter by Vale and Littlejohn in this volume). OER has been informed by concepts around open and distance learning, open access to knowledge, free sharing and peer collaboration. Activity around Open Educational Resources has been prolific over the past decade: from a standing start 10 years ago, a Google search on open educational resources now produces over 163million results. The origins have focused OER activity around content production, release and use in education, rather than the wider use and benefits of OER for learning in general. While potential benefits of OER have been recognised (OECD, 2007; McGill, Beetham, Falconer, & Littlejohn, 2010; Yuan, MacNeil, & Kraan, 2008), OER release and use are not widespread professional practices, even within the education sector, and understanding of the impact on teaching and learning is limited. While it is recognised that the release of OER in itself does not automatically lead to use by others (Lane & MacAndrew, 2010; McGill et al., 2010), the contexts within which OERs can impact on the learning practice and/or the professional practice of academics are unknown. On the surface, educational communities of practice such as subject communities seem ideal settings to encourage and support the release and sharing of Open Educational Resources. However, earlier studies have flagged inherent difficulties in the community release of online resources – for example to create economies of scale (Margaryan & Littlejohn, 2008). Firstly, academics dealing with day-to-day, immediate work issues tend to focus on short-term goals, missing potential longer term gains associated with releasing resources that can be used by (unidentified) others (ibid). Secondly, academics place importance on contextual factors that conflict with the idea of open reuse of resources across a range of contexts (ibid). Thirdly, although communities provide a trusted environment for changing professional practice, long-term these communities can become inward facing, inhibiting potential growth, creativity and innovation (Littlejohn, Beetham, & McGill, 2012). These underlying tensions inherent in the enterprise of OER release and the role of communities may undermine successful implementation of OER initiatives yet are often overlooked by policy makers and practitioners (Littlejohn & Margaryan, 2010). The characteristics of bounded communities, where people have tight links with colleagues and learners, are at odds with the diverse needs of a wider group of (often unknown) users in open networks (Margaryan & Littlejohn, 2008). Bounded communities – for example groups of academics working within a single subject discipline - tend to be more tightly knit than dispersed groups, such as industry subject experts who are seeking resources to teach a specific concept. Academics, particularly those who are used to teaching within conventional ‘closed’ courses, often fail to consider the wider groups of people who may benefit from the resources released. Dimensions affecting communities include the purpose (shared goal and interests), interaction (modes of participation and communication), roles and responsibilities, coherence (whether the community is close-knit or loosely confederated and transient), context (the broader ecology within which the community exists), rules (implicit and explicit rules that govern the functioning of the community) and practices (predominant approaches used in the community) (Margaryan & Littlejohn, 2008). These characteristics vary across different user communities, which may cause problems if OER are designed for a specific group of users, making them less adaptable by individuals and groups across a range of diverse communities. The aim of this chapter is to surface intrinsic problems in the release of OER within communities bounded by common expectations, practices or other parameters. We focus on emerging rules and roles relating to new professional practices. These were identified within the context of the UK Higher Education Academy and Joint Information Systems Committee’s (JISC) UKOER pilot programme.

The concept of design for learning has arisen as education faces up to the implications of modern pedagogy, student diversity, and the affordances of information and communication technologies. This paper examines some of the benefits and issues for teachers in further and higher education surrounding the idea of learning design and its practical implementation in blended learning. It looks particularly at questions of documenting and representing learning designs so that they can be communicated to others. It explores the differing requirements of representations at various stages in the planning and sharing process, and for different communities of users, finding that multiple perspectives on a learning design are usually necessary. However, few representations to date have succeeded in capturing the essence of a good piece of teaching. Ways of representing designs as dynamic processes, rather than static products, may need to be developed. The paper is based on the outcomes of work with practising teachers during the UK Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC)‐funded Models of Practice Project, part of JISC's Design for Learning Programme, which runs from 2006 to 2007.

Historically, it has been the work of talented individuals to produce solutions for those with a variety of disabilities who are working and studying in the field of Mathematics and Statistics. Reading graphs from a screen or paper when blind is a challenge, and coping with complex statistics causes many dyslexic students to blanch. However, there are ways of managing independently and it is often through the use of assistive technology that problems are solved and equal access is maintained. The Technology for Disabilities Information Service (TechDis) (www.techdis.ac.uk), has a role to play in enhancing access to this technology by working closely with existing groups in both Higher and Further Education to provide relevant materials for the teaching and learning community; the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) provide the TechDis Service, and TechDis will work closely with other JISC services. TechDis will also interact with other bodies, including the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN), with whom TechDis is co-located in York. This article is part of the ongoing process to address the practicalities of making Mathematics accessible through the use of assistive technology, and will contain links to further information.

Information technology has been used in teaching, learning, and assessment for many years, from programmed learning and on-line tutorials, which are teaching-centred, at one end of the spectrum, to computer-supported collaborative environments, which are learning-centred. The term e-learning has developed over recent years to subsume these and related terms. The UK Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) provides the following useful explanation: E-Learning can cover a spectrum of activities from supporting learning, to blended learning (the combination of traditional and e-learning practices), to learning that is delivered entirely online. Whatever the technology, however, learning is the vital element. (JISC, n.d.) A number of specifications and standards are starting to emerge around e-learning. For example, relating to the Communication Interface: how resources communicate with other systems or meta-data; how to describe e-learning resources in a consistent manner and packaging; and how to gather resources into useful bundles. Organisations such as the IMS Global Learning Consortium 1 help contribute specifications in this area.

Background and context The aims of this volume A key motivation for developing this volume was the need to address the ‘use’, ‘value’ and ‘impact’ of digital collections in the context of an expanding mass of digital content with tremendous potential. Specifically: • How can we understand how digital collections are being used, and by whom? • How do we assess their value, and add value over time, in order to make decisions about which collections to digitize or make available, and how? • How do we assess their impact on scholarship, on knowledge transfer and on information management and access? • How do we ‘measure’ value? What can be measured, and how? • Is it possible to ensure their sustainability, value and impact over time? • How might we apply indicators of use, value and impact to inform funding decisions and policy making for the future? The explosion of digital initiatives This volume of essays is, in many respects, a follow up and companion to Digitizing Collections: strategic issues for the information manager (Hughes, 2004). Since its publication, digitization initiatives have continued at a tremendous pace in libraries, archives and museums, as well as in higher education. Digitization of existing library, museum and archive collections is still a major priority, where funding can still be found for these initiatives. The National Library of Wales is continuing to digitize two million pages of historic Welsh newspapers and journals in a three-year project that will conclude in 2012, with funding from the Welsh Government. The British Library is partnering online publisher Brightsolid to digitize up to 40 million pages of newspapers. In the USA, the Smithsonian Institute has a remit to digitize its entire collection: a challenge considering that the Smithsonian is home to 137 million objects, 100,000 cubic feet of archival material and 1.8 million library volumes. In the UK, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) has launched a new phase of digitization via its e-Content programme, for projects that will be completed in 2012. This is the era of Google, and mass digitization initiatives to put our cultural heritage online are flourishing.

Through a number of strategic investments by various funding organisations, the UK academic community has access to a unique and expansive range of digital data resources. The Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS), supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) is a national data service. ESDS provides access and support for an extensive range of key economic and social data, both quantitative and qualitative, spanning many disciplines and themes. It comprises a number of specialist data services that promote and encourage data usage in teaching and research. While individual datasets are used extensively in academic research, they are signifi cantly under used in learning and teaching programmes within Higher Education (HE), at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, and are rarely used in Further Education (FE). As a service provider of the ESDS, the UK Data Archive (UKDA) is in a strong position to offer its data resources to the learning and teaching communities for developing materials that might be more appealing to teachers than raw data. This activity requires advice and input from instructors in the classroom on how to develop the pedagogic aspects of learning resources: which content to extract; how to contextualise and apply raw data; where to position such resources in the learning process; and on the usability and functionality of the digital resources created. This paper describes the UKDA Survey Data in Teaching project (SDiT), funded under the JISC Exchange for Learning (X4L) Programme. The project’s goals were to increase the use of real data sources in the classroom, and in a more ambitious sense, to help improve the data literacy of those studying social sciences, from school students age 16-19 to postgraduates. The project created a set of free teaching and learning data and statistics-oriented resources based on the study of crime in society, and were based on learning strategies that encourage the teaching of research methods within a substantive context. This paper addresses both the positive experiences and challenges that arose from running the project.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to describe the findings from the qualitative strand of the National e‐Book Observatory (2007‐2009) project, relating to the promotion of e‐textbooks in UK universities by the library, academics and publishers. A complementary paper on the ways in which students and academics locate e‐books provided by their library will appear in a future issue.Design/methodology/approachFollowing the provision by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) in the UK of collections of e‐textbooks, the project used deep log analysis, benchmark surveys and focus groups to develop a rich picture of library e‐collection management and use by students and academics. Focus groups were undertaken with library staff, academics and students; the dialogues were transcribed and analysed using NVivo7 software.FindingsThe qualitative studies found that libraries were using a range of promotional tools, although these were not always finding their targets. Often libraries had no formal promotion strategy for e‐resources. Although little in evidence, the value of academic commitment and promotion was emphasised. Promotion by publishers and aggregators is both to libraries and directly to academic staff. Students felt that they were largely unaware of promotion beyond the presence of e‐books in the catalogue, and in some cases stated explicitly that they thought more should be done to promote library e‐resources to them.Practical implicationsThe paper offers pragmatic guidance on promotional methodologies.Originality/valueThe project describes the first major, national usage study of e‐books in higher education. The paper contributes significantly to the literature in discussing the importance of promoting e‐books to students and staff.

The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) information environment aims to offer seamless and integrated access to a wide range of digital collections and resources through a common interface. Portals are a primary means through which such resources will be delivered to users, facilitating the discovery of information. Portals can deliver their functionality by embedding distinct portal services in Web environments familiar to the user, such as an institutional portal or virtual learning environment. Initial work on such embedding has started, though this promises to be a major area for future development.

This article summarizes the methodology and findings of the Online Catalogue and Repository Interoperability Study (OCRIS), a project recently carried out by the Centre for Digital Library Research at the University of Strathclyde, funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). In the context of the Online Public Access Catalogs (OPAC) and the recent development of the Institutional Repository (IR) within Higher Education Institutions in the United Kingdom, it considers issues of metadata quality, name authority control, and standardized subject headings, as well as departmental and institutional workflows. It also considers duplication and scope overlap within institutions with more than one IR.

The paper provides an overview of recent developments in the provision of networked moving image and sound resources for UK higher and further education, initiated by JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee). The outcomes of the Imagination/Universities Network Pilot Project based at the universities of Glamorgan and Glasgow are outlined, and details are given of the work of JISC’s Moving Pictures and Sound Working Group, including the setting up of two national services (a Managing Agent and an Advisory Service) for moving picture and sound resources. Information is also given on four major new projects in this area funded as part of JISC’s programme to develop the DNER (Distributed National Electronic Resource) for learning and teaching, and the technical opportunities and challenges presented by networked moving picture and sound development are discussed.

This paper gives a description of building a Grid middleware portal infrastructure in CCLRC to allow computational scientists, researchers and application users access to resources via an easy to use Web based portal interfaces. The goal is to develop common Grid application components that can be used by portal developers and administrators to build and deploy on open source portal frameworks. This will allow users to authenticate securely to remote resources and provide transparent access via Grid related tools to manage their tasks efficiently. The current portal technology, JSR 168, is described for the development of Java based applications. The work is substantiated by giving an example of building the UK National Grid Service (NGS) portal. NGS Portal itself works as middleware; it "glues" different Grid Resources together in a single location. Portals and portlets are not confined to a Web-based solution, through Web Services for Remote Portlets WSRP [8] portlets offered by different portal framworks can be consumed in software ranging from desktop to PDA.

The impact of higher education institutions on society has become the focus of significant policy attention in recent years, most prominently as part of research evaluation. This paper presents a theoretical exploration of the notion, identifying the key dimensions as source, form, trajectory, intensity, timescale and destination. While acknowledging the importance of porosity between universities and society, and the need to address critical contemporary challenges, five dangers of the impact agenda are highlighted: the normative dimension; the linear relationship; unpredictability; measurement; and instrumentalization. As a response to dominant conceptualizations, the paper proposes the notion of the generative intrinsic as a more robust basis on which to base the work of universities.ResumoO impacto das instituições de ensino superior na sociedade tem se tornado o foco de atenção política significativa nos últimos anos, mais proeminentemente como parte da avaliação da pesquisa. Este artigo apresenta uma exploração teórica da categoria noção, identificando as dimensões-chave como fonte, forma, trajetória, intensidade, escala de tempo e destino. Embora reconhecendo a importância da porosidade entre as universidades e a sociedade, e a necessidade de abordar desafios contemporâneos críticos, cinco perigos da agenda de impacto são destacados: a dimensão normativa; o relacionamento linear; imprevisibilidade; medição; e instrumentalização. Como resposta às conceituações dominantes, o artigo propõe a noção do intrínseco generativo como uma base mais robusta sobre a qual basear o trabalho das universidades.Keywords: Higher education policy, Impact, Instrumentalization, Public engagement, Research evaluation, Universities.Palavras-chave: Políticas de educação superior, Impacto, Instrumentalização, Engajamento público, Avaliação da pesquisa, Universidades.ReferencesASHWIN, P. (2016) ‘From a teaching perspective, “impact” looks very different’. Times Higher Education, 21 March. Online. www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/teaching-perspectiveimpact-looks-very-different (accessed 3 May 2018).BARNETT, R. (2004) ‘The purposes of higher education and the changing face of academia’. London Review of Education, 2 (1), 61–73.BELFIORE, E. (2014) ‘”Impact”, “value” and “bad economics”: Making sense of the problem of value in the arts and humanities’. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14 (1), 95–110.BRENNAN, J., KING, R. AND LEBEAU, Y. (2004) The Role of Universities in the Transformation of Societies: Synthesis report. London: Association of Commonwealth Universities and the Open UniversityBYNNER, J. AND EGERTON, M. (2001) The Wider Benefits of Higher Education. Report by the Wider Benefits of Learning Research Centre, Institute of Education, University of London.CHUBB, J. AND WATERMEYER, R. (2017) ‘Artifice or integrity in the marketization of research impact? Investigating the moral economy of (pathways to) impact statements within research funding proposals in the UK and Australia’. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (12), 2,360–72.COLEMAN, J.S. (1986) ‘The idea of the developmental university’. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 24 (4), 476–94.COLLINI, S. (2012) What are Universities For? London: Penguin. Dewey, J. (1967) ‘The continuum of ends-means’. In Archambault, R. (ed.) John Dewey on Education: Selected writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 97–107. ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) (n.d.) ‘What is impact?’. Online. www.esrc.ac.uk/ research/impact-toolkit/what-is-impact/ (accessed 22 April 2018).FIELDING, M. (2003) ‘The impact of impact’. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33 (2), 289–95.FRANCIS, B. (2011) ‘Increasing impact? An analysis of issues raised by the impact agenda in educational research’. Scottish Educational Review, 43 (2), 4–16.GIBBONS, M., LIMOGES, C., NOWOTNY, H., SCHWARTZMAN, S., SCOTT, P. AND TROW, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE Publications.GUNN, A. AND MINTROM, M. (2016) ‘Higher education policy change in Europe: Academic research funding and the impact agenda’. European Education, 48 (4), 241–57.GUNN, A. AND MINTROM, M. (2017) ‘Five things to consider when designing a policy to measure research impact’. The Conversation, 12 January. Online. http://theconversation.com/fivethings-to-consider-when-designing-a-policy-to-measure-research-impact-71078 (accessed 22 April 2017).ILIE, S. AND ROSE, P. (2016) ‘Is equal access to higher education in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa achievable by 2030?’. Higher Education 72 (4), 435–55.JUMP, P. (2015) ‘The impact of impact’. Times Higher Education, 19 February. Online. www.timeshighereducation.com/features/the-impact-of-impact/2018540.article (accessed 3 May 2018).LEE, S.T. (2017) ‘The Structure of a University: A Karatanian interrogation into instrumentalism, idealism and community in postwar British higher education, 1945–2015’. Unpublished PhD thesis, Birkbeck University.MACFARLANE, B. (2011) ‘The morphing of academic practice: Unbundling and the rise of the paraacademic’. Higher Education Quarterly, 65 (1), 59–73. Marginson, S. (2011) ‘Higher education and public good’. Higher Education Quarterly, 65 (4), 411–33.MARGINSON, S. (2016) ‘The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems’. Higher Education, 72 (4), 413–34.MARTIN, B. (2011) ‘The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: Are we creating a Frankenstein monster?’. Research Evaluation, 20 (3), 247–54.MARTIN, C. (2011) ‘Philosophy of education in the public sphere: The case of “relevance”’. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 30, 615–29. McCowan, T. (2009) Rethinking Citizenship Education: A curriculum for participatory democracy. London: Continuum.MCCOWAN, T. (2015) ‘Should universities promote employability?’. Theory and Research in Education, 13 (3), 267–85.MCCOWAN, T. (2016a) ‘Three dimensions of equity of access to higher education’. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46 (4), 645–65.MCCOWAN, T. (2016b) ‘Universities and the post-2015 development agenda: An analytical framework’. Higher Education, 72 (4), 505–23.MCCOWAN, T. (2017) ‘Higher education, unbundling and the end of the university as we know it’. Oxford Review of Education, 43 (6), 733–48.McDowell, G. (2003) ‘Engaged universities: Lessons from the land-grant universities and extension’. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585 (1), 31–50.MCMAHON, W. (2009) Higher Learning, Greater Good: The private and social benefits of higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.NIXON, J. (2004) ‘Education for the good society: The integrity of academic practice’. London Review of Education, 2 (3), 245–52.OANCEA, A. (2013a) ‘Buzzwords and values: The prominence of “impact” in UK research policy and governance’. Research Trends, 33, 6–8.OANCEA, A. (2013b) ‘Interpretations of research impact in seven disciplines’. European Educational Research Journal, 12 (2), 242–50.OKETCH, M., MCCOWAN, T. AND SCHENDEL, R. (2014) The Impact of Tertiary Education on Development: A rigorous literature review. London: Department for International Development.OVSEIKO, P., OANCEA, A. AND BUCHAN, A. (2012) ‘Assessing research impact in academic clinical medicine: A study using Research Excellence Framework pilot impact indicators’. BMC Health Services Research, 12 (478), 1–23.PARKER, J. AND VAN TEIJLINGEN, E. (2012) ‘The Research Excellence Framework (REF): Assessing the impact of social work research on society’. Practice: Social Work in Action, 24 (1), 41–52.PENFIELD, T., BAKER, M.J., SCOBLE, R. AND WYKES, M.C. (2014) ‘Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review’. Research Evaluation, 23 (1), 21–32.PERKIN, H. (2007) ‘History of universities’. In Forest, J.J.F. and Altbach, P.G. (eds) International Handbook of Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer, 159–206.PHIPPS, A. (2014) ‘The dark side of the impact agenda’. Times Higher Education, 4 December. Online. www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/opinion/the-dark-side-of-the-impactagenda/2017299.article (accessed 3 May 3018).READINGS, B. (1996) The University in Ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.REF (Research Excellence Framework) (2011) Assessment Framework and Guidance on Submissions: Research excellence framework 02.2011. Online. www.ref.ac.uk/2014/pubs/2011-02/ (accessed 22 April 2018).RESEARCH COUNCIL ECONOMIC IMPACT GROUP (2006) Increasing the Economic Impact of Research Councils. London: Department of Trade and Industry.Research Councils UK (2017) Excellence with Impact. Online. www.ukri.org/innovation/excellencewith-impact/ (accessed 15 July 2017).SALL, E., LEBEAU, Y. AND KASSIMIR, R. (2003) ‘The public dimensions of the university in Africa’. Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 1 (1), 126–48.SANTOS, B.S. (2004) A universidade do século XXI: Para uma reforma democratica e emancipatória da universidade. São Paulo: Cortez.Siegfried, J., Sanderson, A. and McHenry, P. (2007) ‘The economic impact of colleges and universities’. Economics of Education Review, 26 (5), 546–58.SMITH, S., WARD, V. AND HOUSE, A. (2011) ‘”Impact” in the proposals for the UK’s Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy’. Research Policy, 40 (10), 1,369–79.UNIVERSITIES UK (2014) The Impact of Universities on the UK Economy. London: Universities UK.UPTON, S., VALLANCE, P. AND GODDARD, J. (2014) ‘From outcome to process: Evidence for a new approach to research impact assessment’. Research Evaluation, 23 (4), 352–65.WALTER, I., NUTLEY, S.M. AND DAVIES, H.T.O. (2003) Research Impact: A cross-sector review. Research Unit for Research Utilisation, University of St Andrews. Online. www.ruru.ac.uk/pdf/LSDA%20 literature%20review%20final.pdf (accessed 22 April 2016).WATERMEYER, R. (2016) ‘Impact in the R