Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Engagement to Impact? Articulating the Public Value of Academic Research

  • Published:
Tertiary Education and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reviews recent culture-change in British higher education (HE) and an increasing emphasis on academics evidencing, in meaningful and measurable ways, the value and contribution of their work to national societies. Discussion focuses on what is purported to be a shift from a focus on academics rationalizing the benefits of their work in terms of public engagement to a more contentious signifier of research worth, “impact”. The primary argument herein is that an impact agenda, framed in terms of assessment and by the upcoming Research Excellence Framework 2014, has not eclipsed an engagement initiative for HE in the UK but actually provided greater credence and tacit momentum. Where public engagement “pre-impact” was viewed by sections of the academic community as frivolous, faddish and tokenistic, it is now elevated as an integral component of impact-capture work and in plotting the pathways between research producer and research intermediary/end-user/collaborator. Where “impact” is a statement of the value of academic work, engagement is the method of its articulation and the means by which impacts are mobilized.

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

References

  • Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). (2009). Leading the world: The economic impact of UK arts and humanities research. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from https://doi.org/www.ahrc.ac.uk/About/ Policy/Documents/leadingtheworld.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D. (2010). On dialogue. London: Routledge Classics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowling, A., & Rowe, G. (2005). “You decide doctor”. What do patient preference arms in clinical trials really mean?. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(11), 914–915.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, M. (2009). Beyond technocracy: Science, politics and citizens. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrows, J. (1999). Going beyond labels: A framework for profiling institutional stakeholders. Contemporary Education, 70(4), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society, the information age: Economy, society and culture (Vol. 1). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities. Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon/IAU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durant, J. (1999). Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 313–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). (2010). How to maximise impact. Retrieved January 15, 2011, from https://doi.org/www.esrc.ac.uk/funding-and-guidance/tools-and-resources/ impact-toolkit/what-how-and-why/how-to.aspx

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkovitz, H. (2002). Incubation of incubators: Innovation as a triple helix of university-industry-government networks. Science and Public Policy, 29(2), 115–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkovitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 295–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, A. (2006). Beyond our expectations: A report of the experiences of involving service users in forensic mental health research. National Programme on Forensic Mental Health R&D. London: Department of Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (2005). Are scientists irrational? Risk assessment in practical reason. In M. Leach, I. Scoones, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Science and citizens: Globalisation and the challenge of engagement (pp. 54–65). London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, J., & Lock, S. J. (2008). The evolution of ‘Public Understanding of Science’ in the UK. Sociology Compass, 2(4), 1252–1265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

    Google Scholar 

  • HEFCE/REF 2014. (2010a). Research excellence framework impact pilot exercise. Findings of the expert panels. Retrieved April 24, 2011, from https://doi.org/www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/other/ re01_10/

    Google Scholar 

  • HEFCE/REF 2014. (2010b). Research excellence framework impact pilot exercise. Findings of the expert panels. Annex 1: Social work and social policy panel additional feedback. Retrieved April 24, 2011, from https://doi.org/www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/other/re01_10/

    Google Scholar 

  • HEFCE/REF 2014. (2011a). Decisions on assessing research impact. Retrieved July 25, 2011, from https://doi.org/www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2011/01_11/

    Google Scholar 

  • HEFCE/REF 2014. (2011b). Assessment framework and guidance on submissions. Retrieved July 25, 2011, from https://doi.org/www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2011/02_11/

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, W., Stewart, P., Garrow, A., Anderson, I., & Thorpe, L. (2002). Researching Aboriginal health: Experience from a study of urban young people’s health and well-being. Social Science & Medicine, 54(8), 1267–1279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Murdock, G., & O’ Riordan, T. (2007). The GM debate: Risk, politics and public engagement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology. (2000). Science and society—3rd report. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the “new” scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36(2), 299–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A., & Michael, M. (2003). Science, social theory and public knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science: The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladyman, J. (2009). Cited in Corbyn, Z. Anti-impact campaign’s “poster-boy” sticks up for the Ivory Tower. Times Higher Education. Retrieved April 25, 2011, from https://doi.org/www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=409614&sectioncode=26

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, Y. L. J., & Pang, S. K. N. (2003). The relative effects of environmental, internal and contextual factors on organizational learning: The case of Hong Kong schools under reforms. The Learning Organization, 10(2), 83–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leadbeater, C. (1999). Living on thin air: The new economy. New York, NY: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederbogen, U., & Trebbe, J. (2003). Promoting science on the web: Public relations for scientific organizations—results of a content analysis. Science Communication, 24(3), 333–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehr, J. L., McCallie, E., Davies, S. R., Caron, B. R., Gammon, B., & Duensing, S. (2007). The role and value of dialogue events as sites of informal science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1467–1487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy, 23(5), 279–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • LSE Blogs. (2011). Impact of social sciences: Maximizing the impact of academic research. Retrieved July 27, 2011, from https://doi.org/blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2010). An exploratory research on the stakeholders of a university. Journal of Management and Strategy, 1(1), 76–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2011). The process of change in university management: From the “Ivory Tower” to “Entrepreneurialism”. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 33(2), 124–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marris, C., Wynne, B., Simmons, P., & Weldon, S. (2001). Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology in Europe. (PABE) Final Report. Retrieved January 20, 2012, from https://doi.org/csec.lancs.ac.uk/archive/pabe/docs.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • Massoli, L. (2007). Science on the net: An analysis of the websites of the European public research institutions. Journal of Science Communication, 6(3). Retrieved January 20, 2012, from https://doi.org/jcom.sissa.it/archive/06/03.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 2(2-4), 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosavel, M., Simon, C., van Stade, D., & Buchbinder, M. (2005). Community-based participatory research (CBPR) in South Africa: Engaging multiple constituents to shape the research questions. Social Science and Medicine, 61(12), 2577–2587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neave, G. (2002). Stakeholder perspective historically explored. In J. Enders & O. Fulton (Eds.), Higher education in a globalising world: International trends and mutual observations (pp. 17–37). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Rethinking science. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Research Councils UK (RCUK). (2010). A Concordat for engaging the public with research. Retrieved February 14, 2011, from https://doi.org/www.rcuk.ac.uk/per/Pages/Concordat.aspx

    Google Scholar 

  • Research Councils UK (RCUK). (2011a). RCUK impact requirements. Frequently asked questions. Retrieved July 17, 2011, from https://doi.org/www.rcuk.ac.uk/kei/impacts/Pages/Guidance.aspx

    Google Scholar 

  • Research Councils UK (RCUK). (2011b). Excellence with impact. Characteristics of a problematic and highly graded pathways to impact. Retrieved July 2, 2011, from https://doi.org/www.rcuk.ac.uk/ kei/impacts/Pages/Characteristics.aspx

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Society. (1985). The public understanding of science. London: Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell Group. (2010). The economic impact of research conducted in Russell Group universities. London: Russell Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell Group. (2011). Russell Group warns that REF impact weighting is still too high. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from https://doi.org/www.russellgroup.ac.uk/russell-group-latest-news/137-2011/4774-russell-group-warns-that-ref-impact-weighting-is-still-too-high/

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B., Scissons, H., Arney, L., Benson, G., Derry, J., Lucas, K., et al. (2004). Communication between people with schizophrenia and their medical professionals: A participatory research project. Qualitative Health Research, 14(4), 562–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J., & Wilsdon, J. (2009). The new politics of public engagement with science. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media (pp. 18–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2006). Gover’Science Seminar 2005—Outcome: From science and society to science in society: Towards a framework for “co-operative research”. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorpe, C. (2010). Participation as post-Fordist politics: Demos, new labour, and science policy. Minerva, 48(4), 389–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trench, B. (2009). Science reporting in the electronic embrace of the Internet. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media (pp. 166–180). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Universities UK. (2009). The impact of universities on the UK economy. London: Universities UK. University and College Union. (2009). UCU response to the REF consultation. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from https://doi.org/www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=4207

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Tunzelman, N., & Kraemer Mhula, E. (2003). Changes in research assessment practices in other countries since 1999: Final report. Report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Bristol: HEFCE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watermeyer, R. (2011). Challenges for engagement: Towards a public academe? Higher Education Quarterly, 65(4), 386–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. (Ed.). (2003). The enterprising university: Reform, excellence and equity. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wissenberg, A. (2011, June 13). Research impact and the REF. Address given to Investigating Academic Impact Conference, at the London School of Economics, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In S. Lash, B. Szersynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 44–83). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics (Cesagen), Cardiff University, 6 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BG, UK

    Richard Watermeyer

Authors
  1. Richard Watermeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Watermeyer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Watermeyer, R. From Engagement to Impact? Articulating the Public Value of Academic Research. Tert Educ Manag 18, 115–130 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.641578

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.641578

Keywords

Search

Navigation