British Politics

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 295–311 | Cite as

The politics of research impact: academic perceptions of the implications for research funding, motivation and quality

  • Jennifer Chubb
  • Mark S. Reed
Original Article


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.


Impact Research assessment Funding Knowledge Neoliberalism 


  1. Anderson, K., and S.J. Smith. 2001. Emotional geographies. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26 (1): 7–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ATSE. Research engagement for Australia: Measuring research engagement between universities and end users. 2006. Retrieved April 19, 2017.
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaumont, J., M. Loopmans, and J. Uitermark. 2005. Politicization of research and the relevance of geography: Some experiences and reflections for an on-going debate. Area 37 (2): 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bekelman, J.E., Y. Li, and C.P. Gross. 2003. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. JAMA 289 (4): 454–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Bodenheimer, T. 2000. Uneasy alliance: Clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. The New England Journal of Medicine 342: 1539–1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bok, D. 1984. Beyond the ivory tower. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 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.
  10. Brewer, J. 2013. The public value of the social sciences: An interpretive essay. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  11. Cherney, A., B. Head, P. Boreham, J. Povey, and M. Ferguson. 2013. Research utilization in the social sciences a comparison of five academic disciplines in Australia. Science Communication 35 (6): 780–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Chubb, J., and M. Reed. 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. Palgrave Communications. Scholar
  14. 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. Scholar
  15. Cook, T., J. Boote, N. Buckley, S. Vougioukalou, and M. Wright. 2017. Accessing participatory research impact and legacy: Developing the evidence base for participatory approaches in health research. Educational Action Research 25 (4): 473–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Deci, E.L. 1971. Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18 (1): 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Docherty, T. 2014. Thomas Docherty on academic freedom. Times Higher Education. Retrieved March 5, 2015.
  19. Donovan, C. 2009. Gradgrinding the social sciences: The politics of metrics of political science. Political Studies Review 7 (1): 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Evans, R. 2016. Achieving and evidencing research ‘impact’? Tensions and dilemmas from an ethic of care perspective. Area 48 (2): 213–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frodeman, R. 2017. The impact agenda and the search for a good life. Palgrave Communications. Scholar
  23. Frodeman, R., and J. Parker. 2009. Intellectual merit and broader impact: The National Science Foundation’s broader impacts criterion and the question of peer review. Social Epistemology 23 (3–4): 337–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Gibbs, A. 2016. Academic freedom in international higher education: Right or responsibility? Ethics and Education 11 (2): 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graham, G. Universities, the recovery of an idea. Societas Book 1. London: Imprint Academic, 2002.Google Scholar
  27. Haldane, Lord. Report of the Machinery of Government Committee (Haldane Report), cmd. 9230. London: Ministry of Reconstruction, 1918.Google Scholar
  28. Hill, S. In response: Do REF cycles really encourage ‘poorer quality research’? Times Higher Education (2018). Retrieved January 31, 2018.
  29. Holbrook, J.B., and R. Frodeman. 2011. Peer review and the ex-ante assessment of societal impacts. Research Evaluation 20 (3): 239–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holmwood, J. 2011. The ideas of a public university. A Manifesto for the Public University, 12–26.Google Scholar
  31. Krimsky, S., L.S. Rothenberg, P. Stott, and G. Kyle. 1998. Scientific journals and their authors’ financial interests: A pilot study. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 67 (4–5): 194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.
  33. Locke, E.A., and G.P. Latham. 2002. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist 57 (9): 705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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. Scholar
  35. Marginson, S., and M. Considine. 2000. The enterprise university. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Martin, R. 2001. Geography and public policy: The case of the missing agenda. Progress in Human Geography 25 (2): 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Naidoo, R. 2003. Repositioning higher education as a global commodity: Opportunities and challenges for future sociology of education work. British Journal of Sociology of Education 24 (2): 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oancea, A. 2013. Interpretations of research impact in seven disciplines. European Educational Research Journal 12 (2): 242–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oancea, A., T. Florez-Petour, and J. Atkinson. 2017. Qualitative network analysis tools for the configurative articulation of cultural value and impact from research. Research Evaluation. Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Pollard, J., N. Henry, J. Bryson, and P. Daniels. 2000. Shades of grey? Geographers and policy. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 25 (2): 243–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pressman, L. 1999. AUTM licensing survey: FY 1999. Northbrook, IL: Association of University Technology Managers.Google Scholar
  43. RCUK. Research Councils UK webpage. 2017. Retrieved April 20.
  44. Rennie, D. 1997. Thyroid storm. JAMA 277: 1238–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. Russell, B. 1996. In praise of idleness and other essays. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Samuel, G.N., and G.E. Derrick. 2015. Societal impact evaluation: Exploring evaluator perceptions of the characterization of impact under the REF2014. Research Evaluation 24 (3): 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sanderson, I. 2002. Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration 80 (1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith, K.E., and E. Stewart. 2017. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stern, N. 2016. Building on success and learning from experience: An independent review of the research excellence framework. Available from:
  53. Terämä, E., M. Smallman, S.J. Lock, C. Johnson, and M.Z. Austwick. 2016. Beyond academia–Interrogating research impact in the research excellence framework. PloS One 11 (12): e0168533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Warry, P. 2006. Increasing the economic impact of the Research Councils (the Warry report). Swindon: Research Council UK.Google Scholar
  55. Watermeyer, R. 2014. Issues in the articulation of ‘impact’: The responses of UK academics to ‘impact’ as a new measure of research assessment. Studies in Higher Education 39 (2): 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Watermeyer, R. 2016. Impact in the REF: Issues and obstacles. Studies in Higher Education 41 (2): 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Watermeyer, R., and A. Hedgecoe. 2016. Selling ‘impact’: Peer reviewer projections of what is needed and what counts in REF impact case studies. A retrospective analysis. Journal of Education Policy 31 (5): 651–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Wise. WonkHE blog, 2016. Retrieved November 8, 2017.

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.Centre for Rural Economy and Institute for Agri-Food Research and Innovation, School of Natural and Environmental SciencesNewcastle UniversityNewcastleUK

Personalised recommendations