Skip to main content
Log in

The rise of impact in academia: repackaging a long-standing idea

  • Original Article
  • Published:
British Politics Aims and scope

Abstract

Since the Research Excellence Framework of 2014 (REF2014) ‘impact’ has created a conceptual conundrum gradually being pieced together by academics across the Higher Education sector. Emerging narratives and counter-narratives focus upon its role in dictating institutional reputation and funding to universities. However, not only does literature exploring impact, rather than ‘REF2014 impact’ per se, seldom see it as part of a changing sector, but it often also treats it as a new phenomenon within the political and social sciences. Here, we draw upon academic perceptions of impact set in motion in the UK during the 1970s, we critique the underlying assumption that impact is new. We argue three key points to this end. Firstly, contrary to much of the literature examining academic perceptions of impact, it is a long-standing idea. Secondly, within such accounts, the effect of academic research on policy and society (which is long-standing) and the instrumentalisation of impact as a funding requirement (which is relatively new) are conflated. Thirdly, this conflation creates a novelty effect. In the context of a wider sea change to Higher Education, we examine different forms of consent, acceptance, endorsement and resistance surrounding the ‘new’ impact agenda to argue that this ‘novelty effect’ masks an important transitory process of acclimatisation among academics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Grant’s review of 6,679 impact case studies submitted to the REF2014 (from 149 fields of research) estimated that there are 3709 ‘unique pathways to impact’. Within this deluge, ‘informing government policy’ and ‘parliamentary scrutiny’ were the most common types of impact for Panel C (social sciences) (2015, p. 56).

References

  • Apple, M.W. 2005. Education, markets, and an audit culture. Critical Quarterly 47 (1–2): 11–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S.J. 2012. Performativity, commodification and commitment: An I-Spy guide to the Neoliberal University. British Journal of Educational Studies. 60 (1): 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bence, V., and C. Oppenheim. 2005. The evolution of the UK’s Research Assessment Exercise: publications, performance and perceptions. Journal of Educational Administration and History 37 (2): 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beynon, H. 2016. Global dialogue: Newsletter for the International Sociological Association. The rise of the corporate university 6: 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. 2004. For Public Sociology. Presidential address at the American Sociological Association.

  • Burawoy, M. 2012. The Public Universitya Battleground for Real Utopias. Presentation at the annual meeting of the American Sociology Association.

  • Chubb, J., and R. Watermeyer. 2016. Artifice or integrity in the marketization of research impact?: Investigating the moral economy of (pathway to) impact statements within research funding proposals in the UK and Australia. Studies in Higher Education 42 (12): 2360–2372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collini, S. 2012. What are Universities for?. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dallyn, S., M. Marinetto, and C. Cederstrom. 2015. The academic as public intellectual: Examining public engagement in the professionalised academy. Sociology 49 (6): 1031–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlop, C. 2016. Narrating impact: storytelling in politics and international studies. PAIS Impact Conference 22–23 November 2016, Warwick University.

  • Economic and Social Research Council. 2016. What is impact? http://www.esrc.ac.uk/research/evaluation-and-impact/what-is-impact/ (accessed 11 Aug 16).

  • Economic and Social Research Council 2014. Impact Toolkit. http://www.esrc.ac.uk/research/impact-toolkit/ (accessed 26 Jul 16).

  • Grant, J. 2015. The Nature, Scale and Beneficiaries of Research impact: An Initial Analysis of Research Excellence Framework (REF2014) 2014 Impact Case Studies. London: King’s College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, T., C. Jackson, C. Shaw, and T. Janamian. 2016. Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: Literature review and case study. The Milbank Quarterly 94 (2): 392–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. 2014. The perils of ‘impact’ for academic social science. Contemporary Social Science 9: 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmwood, J. (ed.). 2011. The Idea of a Public University. In A Manifesto for the Public University. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laredo, P. 2007. Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities? Higher Education Policy 20 (4): 441–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, L. 2002. Marketizing higher education: Neoliberal strategies and counter-strategies. In The Virtual University? Knowledge, Markets and Management, ed. Kevin Robins, and Frank Webster, 227–248. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K., and F. Engels. 1845. The German Ideology. New York: International Publishers Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, B. 2011. The morphing of academic practice: Unbundling and the rise of the para-academic. Higher Education Quarterly. 65 (1): 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, B. 2007. The Academic Citizen: The Virtue of Service in University Life. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrow, E.M. 2016. The Impact of Higher Education Leadership, Governance and Management Research: Mining The 2014 Research Excellence Framework Impact Case Studies. Leadership Foundation.

  • Olssen, M., and M.A. Peters. 2005. Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy. 20 (3): 313–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penfield, T., M.J. Baker, R. Scoble, and M.C. Wykes. 2014. Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Research Evaluation 23 (1): 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R.A. 2003. Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline, With a New Preface and Epilogue. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radice, H. 2013. How We Got Here: UK Higher Education under Neoliberalism. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 12 (3): 407–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shore, C., and S. Wright. 1999. Audit culture and anthropology: Neo-Liberalism in British higher education. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. https://doi.org/10.2307/2661148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K., and E. Stewart. 2016. We need to talk about impact: Why social policy academics need to engage with the UK’s research impact agenda. Journal of Social Policy. 46 (1): 109–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, N. 2016. Building on Success and Learning from Experience: An Independent Review of the Research Excellence Framework. London: UK Government Department for Business, Energy, & Industrial Strategy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sum, N., and B. Jessop. 2013. Towards a Cultural Political Economy Putting Culture in its Place in Political Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watermeyer, R., and A. Hedgcoe. 2016. Selling ‘impact’: peer reviewer projections of what is needed and what counts in REF2014 impact case studies A retrospective analysis. Journal of Education Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1170885.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J., et al. 2015. The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. Bristol: HEFCE.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge with gratitude that this research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. The research was also supported by the Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods. Many thanks are also due to Professor Ian Rees Jones and Professor Sally Power.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sioned Pearce.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pearce, S., Evans, D. The rise of impact in academia: repackaging a long-standing idea. Br Polit 13, 348–360 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-018-0079-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-018-0079-7

Keywords

Navigation