Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Academic freedom, the impact agenda, and pressures to publish: understanding the driving forces in higher education

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
SN Social Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Academic freedom is critical for the sound production and dissemination of new knowledge. However, the growing emphasis that research funders have placed on the societal impact of research has concerned some scholars, particularly with regard to its potential impact on their academic freedom. These concerns can be about pressures to research with immediate applications, scientific impartiality and reduced investment into fundamental research. However, we argue that these concerns can also relate to the ever-growing pressure to publish, experienced by most academics (the so-called ‘publish or perish’ culture). Understanding the dynamic between academic freedom and the impact agenda would be incomplete, we argue, without accounting for the effects of the publish or perish culture in academia. For this purpose, we first investigated the justification for academic freedom and the function it is supposed to perform. Our analysis then examined the relationship between academic freedom and the impact agenda on the fundamental level with a focus on societal impact, knowledge mobilization, and accountability in using public funds. Finally, this discussion paper highlighted the effects of the publish or perish culture in academia as they contradict the shared values of academic freedom and the impact agenda. Ultimately, these effects pose a serious threat to academic freedom by questioning its underlying justification and function. We conclude that addressing the effects of the publish or perish culture has more urgency and significance for academics in order to protect academic freedom.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

  • Abdel-Motaal MB (2002) Academic freedom and civil society: some personal reflections. High Educ Pol 15(4):365–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abma TA, Cook T, Rämgård M, Kleba E, Harris J, Wallerstein N (2017) Social impact of participatory health research: collaborative non-linear processes of knowledge mobilization. Educ Action Res 25(4):489–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson G (2008) Mapping academic resistance in the Managerial University. Organization 15(2):251–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appiagyei-Atua K, Beiter KD, Karran T (2015) The composite theory: an african contribution to the academic freedom discourse. S Afr J Human Rights 31(2):315–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby E (1966) Technology and the academics: an essay on universities and the scientific revolution. Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayres S (2014) Rethinking policy and politics: reflections on contemporary debates in policy studies. Policy Press, Bristol

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bandola-Gill J (2019) Between relevance and excellence? Research impact agenda and the production of policy knowledge. Sci Public Policy 46(6):895–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes J (2020) Collegial governance in postwar Australian universities. Hist Educ Rev 49:149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron S, Russell-Bennett R (2016) Editorial: beyond publish or perish: the importance of citations and how to get them. J Serv Mark 30(3):257–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayley JE, Phipps D (2019) Institutional impact health workbook. Bingley, Emerald Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernal JD (1938) The social function of science. Stephen Austin and Sons, Hertford

    Google Scholar 

  • Braxton JM, Bayer AE (1994) Perceptions of research misconduct and an analysis of their correlates. J High Educ 65(3):351–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks H (1990) Lessons of history: successive challenges to science policy. In: Cozzens SE, Healey P, Rip A, Ziman J (eds) The research system in transition. Dordrecht, Springer, pp 11–22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell B (2010) Applying knowledge to generate action: a community-based knowledge translation framework. J Contin Educ Heal Prof 30(1):65–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Association of University Teachers (2018) Academic freedom. https://www.caut.ca/about-us/caut-policy/lists/caut-policy-statements/policy-statement-on-academic-freedom. Accessed 10 July 2020

  • Chubb JA (2017) Instrumentalism and epistemic responsibility: researchers and the impact agenda in the UK and Australia. University of York, York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chubb J, Reed M (2017) Epistemic responsibility as an edifying force in academic research: investigating the moral challenges and opportunities of an impact agenda in the UK and Australia. Palgr Commun 3(1):20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole AL (2000) Academic freedom and the publish or perish paradox in schools of education. Teach Educ Q 27(2):33–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper A, Rodway J, Read R (2018) Knowledge mobilization practices of educational researchers across Canada. Can J High Educ 48(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creutzfeldt N, Mason M, McConnachie K (2019) Routledge handbook of socio-legal theory and methods. Taylor & Francis

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Davies H, Nutley S, Walter I (2005) Assessing the impact of social science research: conceptual, methodological and practical issues.

  • de Assisa AJB, Holandab CA, de Amorima RFB (2019) A new side of an old problem: self-plagiarism in scientific publications. Geriatr Gerontol Aging 13(2):95–102

    Google Scholar 

  • De Rond M, Miller AN (2005) Publish or perish: bane or boon of academic life? J Manag Inq 14(4):321–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deem R, Hillyard S, Reed M, Reed M (2007) Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism: the changing management of UK universities. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dill DD (2020) Enhancing academic quality and collegial control: insights from US policy on the ethical conduct of human subjects’ research. High Educ Pol 33(1):45–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobrow MJ, Miller FA, Frank C, Brown AD (2017) Understanding relevance of health research: considerations in the context of research impact assessment. Health Res Pol Syst 15(1):31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle J, Cuthill M (2015) Does ‘get visible or vanish’ herald the end of ‘publish or perish’? High Educ Res Dev 34(3):671–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlop CA (2018) The political economy of politics and international studies impact: REF2014 case analysis. Br Polit 13(3):270–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott DB (2013) Salami slicing and the SPU: publish or perish? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 33(6):625–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Errami M, Garner H (2008) A tale of two citations. Nature 451(7177):397–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli D (2010) Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS ONE 5(4):e10271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(42):17028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fish S (2014) Versions of academic freedom: from professionalism to revolution. University of Chicago Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Foster JG, Rzhetsky A, Evans JA (2015) Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. Am Sociol Rev 80(5):875–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber LG (2001) Inextricably linked: shared governance and academic freedom. Acad Bull AAUP 87(3):22–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Grančay M, Vveinhardt J, Šumilo Ē (2017) Publish or perish: how Central and Eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000–2015. Scientometrics 111(3):1813–1837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston DH (2020) Social contract for science. Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/social-contract-science

  • Hall HM, Walsh J, Greenwood R, Vodden K (2016) Advancing innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador: insights for knowledge mobilization and university-community engagement. J Commun Engag Scholar 9(1):4

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley M (2014) The perils of ‘impact’ for academic social science. Contemp Social Sci 9(3):345–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartl P (2012) Michael Polanyi on freedom of science. Synth Philos 54(2):307

    Google Scholar 

  • Hering JG (2016) Do we need more research or better implementation through knowledge brokering? Sustain Sci 11(2):363–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higher Education Funding Council for England (2011) Assessment framework and guidance on submissions https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/media/ref/content/pub/assessmentframeworkandguidanceonsubmissions/GOS%20including%20addendum.pdf

  • Holt Gary D, Goulding Jack S, Akintoye A (2016) Enablers, challenges and relationships between research impact and theory generation. Eng Constr Archit Manag 23(1):20–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn M (1999) Academic freedom in Canada: a history. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz P (2004) Grutter’s first amendment. BCL Rev 46:461

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff SS (1987) Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Soc Stud Sci 17(2):195–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson S, Orr K (2020) What is business school research for? Academic and stakeholder perspectives, politics and relationality. Stud High Educ 45(3):557–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karran T (2009) Academic freedom: in justification of a universal ideal. Stud High Educ 34(3):263–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klenk NL, Wyatt S (2015) The design and management of multi-stakeholder research networks to maximize knowledge mobilization and innovation opportunities in the forest sector. Forest Policy Econ 61:77–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavis JN (2006) Research, public policymaking, and knowledge-translation processes: Canadian efforts to build bridges. J Contin Educ Heal Prof 26(1):37–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee J (2012) The past, present, and future of scientific misconduct research: what has been done? What needs to be done? J Profr 6(1)

  • Lee I (2014) Publish or perish: the myth and reality of academic publishing. Lang Teach 47(2):250–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin B (2008) Thinking about knowledge mobilization

  • Looseley D (2011) Making an ‘impact’: some personal reflections on the Humanities in the UK. Arts Human High Educ 10(1):9–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozhkina A (2019) Knowledge mobilization: local community engagement, sustainability, and adaptive governance. University of Regina, Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor S, Phipps D, Edwards CM, Kyffin J (2020) Active engagement of canadian research institutions will foster the future of knowledge mobilization and research impact. Int J Educ Policy Leadersh 16(5)

  • Machen R (2019) Critical research impact: on making space for alternatives. Area 52(2):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahony P, Weiner G (2019) Neo-liberalism and the state of higher education in the UK. J Furth High Educ 43(4):560–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson S (2002) Nation-building universities in a global environment: the case of Australia. High Educ 43(3):409–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin B (2011) The research excellence framework and the ‘impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Res Eval 20(3):247–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matei L, Iwinska J (2018) Diverging paths? Institutional autonomy and academic freedom in the European Higher Education Area. In: Curaj A, Deca L, Pricopie R (eds) European Higher Education Area: the impact of past and future policies. Springer, Cham, pp 345–368

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McGettigan A (2013) The great university gamble. Markets and the Future of Higher Education, Pluto Press, Money

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuinness K (2002) The concept of academic freedom, Edwin Mellen Pr

  • Miller Alan N, Taylor Shannon G, Bedeian Arthur G (2011) Publish or perish: academic life as management faculty live it. Career Dev Int 16(5):422–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell V (2019) A proposed framework and tool for non-economic research impact measurement. High Educ Res Dev 38(4):819–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moodie GC (1996) On justifying the different claims to academic freedom. Minerva 34(2):129–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moosa IA (2018) Publish or perish: origin and perceived benefits: perceived benefits versus unintended consequences. Publish or Perish, Edward Elgar Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrish L (2020) Academic freedom and the disciplinary regime in the Neoliberal University. In: Dawes S, Lenormand M (eds) Neoliberalism in context: governance, subjectivity and knowledge. Springer, Cham, pp 235–253

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moustafa K (2015) The disaster of the impact factor. Sci Eng Ethics 21(1):139–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton MS, Scott-Findlay S (2007) Taking stock of current societal, political and academic stakeholders in the Canadian healthcare knowledge translation agenda. Implement Sci 2(1):32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oancea A (2013) Interpretations of research impact in seven disciplines. Eur Educ Res J 12(2):242–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew AM (2011) Scholarship with impact. Br J Manag 22(3):347–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phipps D, Cummins J, Pepler DJ, Craig W, Cardinal S (2016) The co-produced pathway to impact describes knowledge mobilization processes. J Commun Engag Scholarsh 9(1):31–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Poff DC (2012) Research funding and academic freedom. In: Chadwick R (ed) Encyclopedia of applied ethics (second edition). Academic Press, San Diego, pp 797–804

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds RJ (1995) The professional self-esteem of teacher educators. J Teach Educ 46(3):216–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson G, Moulton J (2001) Academic freedom. Encycl Ethics 10–13

  • Rochford F (2003) Academic freedom as insubordination: the legalisation of the academy. Educ Law 15(4):249–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronai I, Griffiths PE (2019) The case for basic biological research. Trends Mol Med 25(2):65–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sá CM, Li SX, Faubert B (2011) Faculties of education and institutional strategies for knowledge mobilization: an exploratory study. High Educ 61(5):501–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawer M (1987) Academic freedom and social responsibility. Politics 22(1):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamoo AE, Resnik DB (2009) Responsible conduct of research. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shore C (2008) Audit culture and Illiberal governance: universities and the politics of accountability. Anthropol Theory 8(3):278–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater T (2012) Impacted geographers: a response to Pain, Kesby and Askins. Area 44(1):117–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith S, Ward V, House A (2011) ‘Impact’ in the proposals for the UK’s research excellence framework: shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy. Res Policy 40(10):1369–1379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (2019) Definitions of terms. https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/definitions-eng.aspx. Accessed 10 July 2020

  • Sutton E (2020) The increasing significance of impact within the Research Excellence Framework (REF). Radiography.

  • Teichler U (2015) Socially relevant and socially responsible higher education: a disputed goal. J New Gener Sci 13(2):113–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Tijdink JK, Verbeke R, Smulders YM (2014) Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 9(5):64–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trowler PR (2001) Academic tribes and territories. McGraw-Hill Education, London

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dalen HP, Henkens K (2012) Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: a worldwide survey. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 63(7):1282–1293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wadesango N (2014) Publish or perish: impediments to research output and publication. Int J Educ Sci 6(1):57–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Watermeyer R (2016) Impact in the REF: issues and obstacles. Stud High Educ 41(2):199–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watermeyer R, Chubb J (2019) Evaluating ‘impact’ in the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF): liminality, looseness and new modalities of scholarly distinction. Stud High Educ 44(9):1554–1566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidner DJ (2003) Academic freedom and the obligation to earn it. J Law Educ 32:445

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams K, Grant J (2018) A comparative review of how the policy and procedures to assess research impact evolved in Australia and the UK. Res Eval 27(2):93–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Fonds de Recherche du Québec—Société et Culture (FRQSC).

Funding

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Integrated Studies in Education, Faculty of Education, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Hamid Golhasany & Blane Harvey

Authors
  1. Hamid Golhasany
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Blane Harvey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HG and BH contributed equally to the design and preparation of this discussion paper. BH, McGill University, is in the editorial board of the SN Social Sciences.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamid Golhasany.

Ethics declarations

Research ethics approval

Ethics approval is not applicable to this article as no data collection with humans or animals was involved in this study.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Golhasany, H., Harvey, B. Academic freedom, the impact agenda, and pressures to publish: understanding the driving forces in higher education. SN Soc Sci 2, 163 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00468-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00468-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation