Fear and loathing in the academy? The role of emotion in response to an impact agenda in the UK and Australia

Abstract

The research impact agenda is frequently portrayed through 'crisis' accounts whereby academic identity is at risk of a kind of existential unravelling. Amid reports of academics under siege in an environment in which self-sovereignty is traditionally preferred and regulation is resisted, heightened emotionalism, namely fear and dread dominate the discourse. Such accounts belie the complexity of the varying moral dispositions, experiences and attitudes possessed by different individuals and groups in the academic research community. In this article we attempt to examine the role of the affective in response to a particular research policy directive -the impact agenda. In doing so, we reveal the contributing factors affecting the community's reaction to impact. In cases where personal, moral and disciplinary identities align with the impact agenda, the emotional response is positive and productive. For many academics however, misalignment gives rise to emotional dissonance. We argue that when harnessed, further acknowledgement of the role of emotion in the academy can produce a more socially and morally coherent response to an impact agenda. We review academic responses from the UK and Australia (n=51) and observe a community heavily emotionally invested in what they do, such that threats to academic identity and research are consequently threats to the self.

Epistemic responsibility as an edifying force in academic research: investigating the moral challenges and opportunities of an impact agenda in the UK and Australia

“…Initial reactions from the academic community were largely characterized by resistance based on personal, political and philosophical grounds (Collini, 2011;Clegg, 2008;Frodeman, 2017;Oancea, 2010;Watermeyer, 2014Watermeyer, , 2016Chubb and Watermeyer, 2016;Donovan, 2017;Chubb et al, 2017). Critics of the impact agenda perceived a risk to academic and scientific freedom and presented objections to what they saw as governmental over-interference in the direction and design of academic research (Braben et al, 2009;Ladyman, 2009;Docherty, 2014).…”

Research into the diversification of university careers in learning and teaching and intentionally closing-the-loop on graduate employability

“…Despite these stress-factors, universities continue to attract an abundance of employees, and many staff are compelled to undertake roles for the furtherance of learning and teaching. As expressed by Chubb, Watermeyer, and Wakeling (2017), the emotional ties to academic labour are binding (p. 556). Thus, learning and teaching may explain the preponderance of universities as employers, in that many staff seem to be compelled by what might be called citizen scholarship.…”

“…A final study by Chubb, Watermeyer and Wakeling (2017), was conducted in the context of an impact agenda, broadly defined as a new requirement that academics, with grant-funding, provide evidence of research impact beyond higher education. The researchers used in-depth interviews with mid-career and senior academics (30 in the United Kingdom and 21 in Australia) to investigate how academics 'felt' about the impact agenda.…”

“…The research of Clegg (2008) and Chubb, Watermeyer and Wakeling (2017) emphasised that identities and career trajectories of academics are complex and often vexed, but at the same time, value-driven. Furthermore, academics and their identities are impacted by the changing nature of universities.…”

“…The size of universities brings complexity, including salient tensions and divides that can be classified as within-role, between-roles and out-of-role (Chubb, Watermeyer, & Wakeling, 2017;McAlpine & Åkerlind, 2010;Taylor, 2008). Such tensions are often driven by hierarchies (both real and imagined), that have come to shape the structures and employment within universities.…”