The effects of the research excellence framework research impact agenda on early- and mid-career researchers in library and information science

Abstract

Early- and mid-career researchers will shape the future of library and information science (LIS) research and it is crucial they be well placed to engage with the research impact agenda. Their understanding of research impact may influence their capacity to be returned to research excellence framework (REF), the UK’s research quality assessment tool, as well as their ability to access research funding. This article reports the findings of a qualitative study exploring how the research impact agenda is influencing early- and mid-career researcher behaviour. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 early- and mid-career researchers. While enthusiastic about creating lasting impact, participants lack effective institutional support to maximise their own research impact. Participants demonstrate uncertainty about what REF impact is. The authors conclude that while there is evidence LIS academics engage with practice to maximise impact, they lack support in building impact and the discipline needs to do more to create opportunities for the academy and the profession to coalesce to identify objects for and deliver impactful research.

An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers

“…Despite this academic progress, however, the practicalities of how to successfully influence policy processes that are laden with diverse ideas, values and norms can remain elusive to many scientists. This is particularly pertinent among early career researchers (ECRs), with evidence showing that while achieving policy impact is an important personal goal for many ECRs (including postgraduate students), they are not always skilled or trained in how to engage with decision-makers, nor understand the complexities of policy processes (e.g., Bernstein et al, 2017;Cvitanovic, Hobday, van Kerkhoff and Marshall, 2015;Marcella et al, 2017). Further, ECRs must not only navigate trade-offs inherent in balancing science-policy work with their research (Sarkki et al, 2014), but to do so in a highly insecure career stage characterised by short-term contracts and extreme mobility (Kellard and Śliwa 2016;Phillips and Heywood-Roos, 2015).…”

“…Similarly, other more practical contributions in this field have a tendency to assume the reader already has access to, and knowledge of, relevant policy networks to "build relationships" with (Brisbois et al, 2018;Cairney et al, 2016;Gibbons et al, 2008); and/or is at a career stage where 'service' activities are explicitly stipulated in academic job descriptions (Arlettaz et al, 2010;Wittemyer et al, 2018), ECRs require support and information tailored to their career stage to enable them to successfully navigate policy processes. For example, evidence from the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework suggest that ECRs are under-represented in the successful impact case studies, and indeed risk being disadvantaged by formal impact frameworks due the limited job security, networks, and institutional support of ECRs relative to established academics (Laundon, 2017;Marcella et al, 2017;Smith and Stewart, 2017). Further, the models of "impact" visible to ECRs within academia are often exceptional individuals who are advanced in their careers, who may implicitly (or even explicitly) suggest to ECRs that one can only have a positive influence on policy and practice, and maintain a research career, by following the same model.…”

“…We acknowledge that while many ECRs are motivated by a desire to achieve impacts on policy and practice, this is not universally the case (Marcella et al, 2017). Indeed, some scholars may feel pressured to 'game' institutionalised impact frameworks (Murphy, 2017;Sivertsen, 2017;Smith and Stewart, 2017), or that current definitions and metrics of "impact" may not necessarily reflect the full scope of benefits derived from research (Stein, 2018).…”

“…Indeed, some scholars may feel pressured to 'game' institutionalised impact frameworks (Murphy, 2017;Sivertsen, 2017;Smith and Stewart, 2017), or that current definitions and metrics of "impact" may not necessarily reflect the full scope of benefits derived from research (Stein, 2018). An in-depth exploration of these issues is outside of the scope of this article, but can be found elsewhere (Boswell and Smith, 2017;Marcella et al, 2017;Sivertsen, 2017;Smith and Stewart, 2017;Stein, 2018) Our intention for this manuscript is to offer practical guidance specifically for ECRs who are interested in engaging with policy and practice to achieve "impact". Existing literature has provided advice for ECRs on communication (Christian, 2018;Kuehne et al, 2014), stakeholder engagement (Duchelle et al, 2009), and diverse opportunities to engage with policy both inside and outside of academia (Bednarek et al, 2018;Petes and Meyer, 2018;Pietri et al, 2013).…”

Altmetrics and societal impact measurements: Match or mismatch? A literature review

“…In other words, the practical importance of the underlying research for society may take a back seat. Furthermore, the scores given to case studies might be influenced by factors which should not impact those scores (Marcella et al, 2018). For instance, case studies of established senior researchers with external funding might be scored higher than those of other researchers (Kellard;Śliwa, 2016).…”