Playing the fields: Theorizing research impact and its assessment

Abstract

How research is assessed affects what types of knowledge are valued, incentivized, and rewarded. An increasingly important element of contemporary research evaluation is the measurement of the wider impact of research (e.g. benefit to society, culture or economy). Although the measurement of impact has been highly contested, the area is under-theorized and dominated by pragmatic research policy imperatives. Informed by a sociological perspective, this article intervenes in this context by reframing research impact as the attainment and maintenance of capital (i.e. symbolic power or status) in various fields beyond academia. It argues that research impact occurs at the intersection of these fields of power. The article shows that impact involves various combinations of capital from the scholarly field, the field of politics, the field of application, the media field, and the economic field, which provide credibility, authority, utility, visibility, and weight, respectively. In exploring the forms of worth and value that underpin the pursuit of legitimacy in these fields, the article provides a new theoretical framework for understanding research impact and its assessment.

A value creation model from science-society interconnections: Archetypal analysis combining publications, survey and altmetric data

“…Journalists, editors, and directors, and other professionals and technicians produce their own forms of outputs using current (science) events or substantive content, designed for consumption by the public or targeting demographic or other sub-groups. News and media platforms are therefore involved in amplifying the reach of science and research results throughout society (Williams, 2020). While the stakes of the game (Bourdieu, 1990) in the media field share some similarities with the stakes of the scientific field, such as novelty and primacy, the media field is principally organised around its own conceptions of quality, such as production values, and indicators of success, such as relative audience share.…”

“…Our approach also steps away from utilitarian and pragmatist approaches to the generation of 'societal impact' from research (Williams, 2020), instead seeking to engage with the uncertainty, indeterminacy, and ambiguity of research valorisation processes. First, there is uncertainty regarding the scope of research valorisation.…”

Societal targeting in researcher funding: An exploratory approach through dimensions and interactions

“…An example is how, during the past two decades, both policy and scholarly interests have expanded from largely only considering commercialization and application of research findings, to including broader social, cultural, environmental and economic objectives for funded research. Traditionally, utilitarian research policy concerns (Williams 2020) tended to focus on tangible economic effects of research, such as developing profitable applications, securing intellectual property, and creating marketable productsto the exclusion of considering other potential societal goals of research (Bornmann 2013). Nevertheless, at the system level, a range of additional funding expectations have also highlighted the possibility of wider uses and benefits of research for society, e.g.…”

“…Individual researchers generate a knowledge contribution in a field, determine essential elements of the research work process, and ultimately decide how they use research funding. Researchers are also key actors because how they adapt their behaviour to funding will affect the kinds of research networks and practices that may lead to societal goals (Williams 2020). It is, therefore, crucial to anchor examination of research funding at this analytical level.…”

Conceptualizing the elements of research impact: towards semantic standards

“…Established concepts used in research evaluation such as "impact factor" and "high impact research" refer to measures of publication and citations of research, but do not measure actual use or value beyond the academic realm (DORA, 2012;Hicks et al, 2015). There has been increasing attention to the nonacademic impacts of research (Bornmann, 2012;Oancea, 2019;Williams, 2020). Alla et al (2017) conducted a systematic review of definitions of research impact, finding 108 definitions in 83 publications.…”