The politics of research impact: academic perceptions of the implications for research funding, motivation and quality
There is growing interest in demonstrating the societal and economic value of research around the world with the UK and Australia at the forefront of these developments. Characterised as an ‘impact agenda’, impact policies have incited debate amongst the academic community and beyond. On the one hand, the edifying and reinforcing effects of impact can be seen to provide greater visibility about the use of public investment in research, whilst, on the other concerns about the subsequent and unintended effects on the nature and quality of research and research cultures, have contributed to a discourse which was (in the very beginning at least) one dominated by resistance. We draw on a qualitative analysis of interviews with UK and Australian mid-senior career academics (n = 51) which explored academic perceptions for resisting an impact agenda, to describe a range of perceived effects on research funding, motivation and quality. We find a persistent perception that impact favours and prioritises ‘types’ of research, leading to a concern that this will reduce funding for certain disciplines. We also note how academics perceived deleterious effects on motivation, culture, capacity and the quality of research. Where impact was seen to ‘direct’ or ‘drive’ research, we discuss how some academics suggested they would re-orientate their work, often at the expense of quality. Indeed, misconceptions about the very meaning of ‘impact’ appear to persist alongside varied intepretations of impact policies and mixed perceptions about how impact is considered in practice with respect to funding decisions. In addition, we posit that extrinsic motivations for impact are ‘crowding out’ intrinsic motivations of academics, altering perceptions of self-determination. This is further compounded by the growing politicisation of knowledge which in turn creates an ideological barrier to engagement. If impact is to be embraced and sustained at scale, institutions must target and harness a wider range of intrinsic motivations and epistemic responsibilities, improving academics’ abilities to respond to the impact agenda in addition to working with, not against those who create policy.
KeywordsImpact Research assessment Funding Knowledge Neoliberalism
- ATSE. Research engagement for Australia: Measuring research engagement between universities and end users. 2006. Retrieved April 19, 2017. https://www.atse.org.au/Documents/reports/research-engagement-australia-summary-report.pdf.
- Bexley, E., R. James, and S. Arkoudis. 2011. The Australian academic profession in transition: Addressing the challenge of reconceptualising academic work and regenerating the academic workforce. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education.Google Scholar
- Bok, D. 1984. Beyond the ivory tower. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Braben, D., J.F. Allen, W. Amos, M. Ashburner, J. Ashmore, T. Birkhead, et al. 2009. Only scholarly freedom delivers real ‘impact’ 1: An open letter to Research Councils UK. Times Higher Education. Retrieved March 5, 2015. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=408984.
- Brewer, J. 2013. The public value of the social sciences: An interpretive essay. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
- Chubb, J.A. Instrumentalism and epistemic responsibility: Researchers and the impact agenda in the UK and Australia. PhD Thesis, University of York, 2017.Google Scholar
- Chubb, J., and R. Watermeyer. 2016. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1144182.Google Scholar
- Cuthill, M., E. O’Shea, B. Wilson, and P. Viljoen. 2014. Universities and the public good: A review of knowledge exchange policy and related university practice in Australia. Australian Universities’ Review 56 (2): 36–46.Google Scholar
- Docherty, T. 2014. Thomas Docherty on academic freedom. Times Higher Education. Retrieved March 5, 2015. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/thomas-docherty-on-academic-freedom/2017268.article.
- Eddy, E. Australian Higher Education Modernisation: Enterprise bargaining and the changing basis of academic ‘autonomy’. In Paper presented to the Australasian Political Science Studies Association, September 29–October 1, 2003. Hobart: University of Tasmania, 2003.Google Scholar
- Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Graham, G. Universities, the recovery of an idea. Societas Book 1. London: Imprint Academic, 2002.Google Scholar
- Haldane, Lord. Report of the Machinery of Government Committee (Haldane Report), cmd. 9230. London: Ministry of Reconstruction, 1918.Google Scholar
- Hill, S. In response: Do REF cycles really encourage ‘poorer quality research’? Times Higher Education (2018). Retrieved January 31, 2018. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/response-do-ref-cycles-really-encourage-poorer-quality-research.
- Holmwood, J. 2011. The ideas of a public university. A Manifesto for the Public University, 12–26.Google Scholar
- Ladyman, J. Scientists call for a revolt against grant rule they claim will end blue skies research. Times Higher Education (2009). Retrieved March 5, 2015. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/405350.article.
- Marcella, R., H. Lockerbie, L. Bloice, C. Hood, and F. Barton. 2017. The effects of the research excellence framework research impact agenda on early- and mid-career researchers in library and information science. Journal of Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551517724685.Google Scholar
- Marginson, S., and M. Considine. 2000. The enterprise university. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Pain, Rachel, Kye Askins, Sarah Banks, Tina Cook, Grace Crawford, Lee Crookes, Stella Derby, Jill Heslop, Yvonne Robinson, and Dave Vanderhoven. Mapping Alternative Impact: Alternative approaches to impact from co-produced research. Project Report. Durham University, 2015.Google Scholar
- Pressman, L. 1999. AUTM licensing survey: FY 1999. Northbrook, IL: Association of University Technology Managers.Google Scholar
- RCUK. Research Councils UK webpage. 2017. Retrieved April 20. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/.
- Reed, M.S. The research impact handbook. Fast track impact. 2016. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/04/10/book-review-the-research-impact-handbook-by-mark-reed/.
- Reed, M.S., and L. Meagher. 2018. Environment and sustainability. In What Works Now? Evidence-based policy and practice revisited, ed. A. Boaz, H. Davies, A. Fraser, and S. Nutley. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
- Rhoads, R.A., and C.A. Torres, ed. 2006. The university, state, and market: The political economy of globalization in the Americas. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Rogers, A., C. Bear, M. Hunt, S. Mills, and R. Sandover. 2014. Intervention: The impact agenda and human geography in UK higher education. ACME 13 (1): 1–9.Google Scholar
- Russell, B. 1996. In praise of idleness and other essays. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Stern, N. 2016. Building on success and learning from experience: An independent review of the research excellence framework. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/541338/ind16-9-ref-stern-review.pdf.
- Warry, P. 2006. Increasing the economic impact of the Research Councils (the Warry report). Swindon: Research Council UK.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. London: HEFCE.Google Scholar
- Wise. WonkHE blog, 2016. Retrieved November 8, 2017. http://wonkhe.com/blogs/analysis-bills-known-and-loved/.