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

Chubb, Jennifer; Reed, Mark

doi:10.1057/s41293-018-0077-9

Cited by 69 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, challenges persist when operationalising some of these with restrictions and varied interpretations of engagement parameters. While funder requirements seek to encourage more socially focused returns on research endeavours, there are veritable concerns that this could also lead to perverse incentives resulting in activities that lead to easily quantifiable instrumental impacts [110,111]. Furthermore, varying terminologies, for instance, with respect to activism, advocacy and lobbying, between government [112,113] and academia [114][115][116] that appear to hinder engagement, need to be confronted if indeed government and academia seek to collectively influence decisionmaking.…”

Section: The Impact Of Funder Imperativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the evolution of engagement between academic public health researchers and decision-makers: from initiation to dissolution

Jessani

Valmeekanathan

Babcock

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Relationships between researchers and decision-makers have demonstrated positive potential to influence research, policy and practice. Over time, interest in better understanding the relationships between the two parties has grown as demonstrated by a plethora of studies globally. However, what remains elusive is the evolution of these vital relationships and what can be learned from them with respect to advancing evidence-informed decisionmaking. We therefore explored the nuances around the initiation, maintenance and dissolution of academic-government relationships.Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 52 faculty at one school of public health and 24 government decisionmakers at city, state, federal and global levels. Interviews were transcribed and coded deductively and inductively using Atlas.Ti. Responses across codes and respondents were extracted into an Excel matrix and compared in order to identify key themes. Findings: Eight key drivers to engagement were identified, namely (1) decision-maker research needs, (2) learning, (3) access to resources, (4) student opportunities, (5) capacity strengthening, (6) strategic positioning, (7) institutional conditionalities, and (8) funder conditionalities. There were several elements that enabled initiation of relationships, including the role of faculty members in the decision-making process, individual attributes and reputation, institutional reputation, social capital, and the role of funders. Maintenance of partnerships was dependent on factors such as synergistic collaboration (i.e. both benefit), mutual trust, contractual issues and funding. Dissolution of relationships resulted from champions changing/leaving positions, engagement in transactional relationships, or limited mutual trust and respect.Conclusions: As universities and government agencies establish relationships and utilise opportunities to share ideas, envision change together, and leverage their collaborations to use evidence to inform decision-making, a new modus operandi becomes possible. Embracing the individual, institutional, networked and systems dynamics of relationships can lead to new practices, alternate approaches and transformative change. Government agencies, schools of public health and higher education institutions more broadly, should pay deliberate attention to identifying and managing the various drivers, enablers and disablers for relationship initiation and resilience in order to promote more evidence-informed decision-making.

show abstract

Section: The Impact Of Funder Imperativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the evolution of engagement between academic public health researchers and decision-makers: from initiation to dissolution

Jessani

Valmeekanathan

Babcock

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Critics argue that a focus of academic performativity can be seen to "destabilise" professional identities (Chubb and Watermeyer, 2017), which in the context of research impact evaluation can further "dehumanise and deprofessionalise" academic performance (Watermeyer, 2019), whilst leading to negative unintended consequences (which Derrick et al, 2018, called "grimpact"). MacDonald (2017), Chubb and Reed (2018) and Weinstein et al (2019) reported concerns from researchers that the impact agenda may be distorting research priorities, "encourag[ing] less discovery-led research" (Weinstein et al, 2019, p. 94), though these concerns were questioned by University managers in the same study who were reported to "not have enough evidence to support that REF was driving specific research agendas in either direction" (p. 94), and further questioned by Hill (2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing impact case studies: a comparative study of high-scoring and low-scoring case studies from REF2014

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports on two studies that used qualitative thematic and quantitative linguistic analysis, respectively, to assess the content and language of the largest ever sample of graded research impact case studies, from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2014 (REF). The paper provides the first empirical evidence across disciplinary main panels of statistically significant linguistic differences between high-versus low-scoring case studies, suggesting that implicit rules linked to written style may have contributed to scores alongside the published criteria on the significance, reach and attribution of impact. High-scoring case studies were more likely to provide specific and high-magnitude articulations of significance and reach than low-scoring cases. High-scoring case studies contained attributional phrases which were more likely to attribute research and/or pathways to impact, and they were written more coherently (containing more explicit causal connections between ideas and more logical connectives) than low-scoring cases. High-scoring case studies appear to have conformed to a distinctive new genre of writing, which was clear and direct, and often simplified in its representation of causality between research and impact, and less likely to contain expressions of uncertainty than typically associated with academic writing. Highscoring case studies in two Main Panels were significantly easier to read than low-scoring cases on the Flesch Reading Ease measure, although both high-scoring and low-scoring cases tended to be of "graduate" reading difficulty. The findings of our work enable impact case study authors to better understand the genre and make content and language choices that communicate their impact as effectively as possible. While directly relevant to the assessment of impact in the UK's Research Excellence Framework, the work also provides insights of relevance to institutions internationally who are designing evaluation frameworks for research impact.

show abstract

“…Yet, several scholars have highlighted opportunities for “doing impact differently” (Blazek et al., ; Chubb & Reed, ; Darby, ; Evans, ; Pain, ; Pain et al., ). Pain et al.…”

Section: Critical Research and Research Impact: An Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather than understanding impact as “striking a blow,” Pain in particular argues for a feminist epistemology of impact that rethinks impact as a process of “walking together” (Pain, ; see also Evans, ). In parallel, Chubb and Reed () argue that impact reminds us of our intrinsic motivations for research and our epistemic responsibilities as academics and to the public. They argue that re‐engaging with these intrinsic motivations incentivises impact without external incentives (Chubb & Reed, ).…”

Section: Critical Research and Research Impact: An Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Critical research impact: On making space for alternatives

Machen

2019

Area

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues for greater dialogue between critical research and research impact. With demands to demonstrate impact increasingly woven into the funding architectures of higher education, concerns have been raised that the UK Research Excellence Framework's impact agenda could adversely affect critical research, favouring instead research that more easily lends itself to societal uptake. Arguing that the threat to critical research is real but not inevitable, this paper draws from a review of impact case studies submitted to REF2014 to provide a perspective on what impact from critical research could look like, and the support required to encourage critical research within the UKREF Impact Agenda. Building on previous provocations to think about research impact differently, it is argued that impact can be conceptualised in ways that support critical agendas. Specifically, the paper identifies five modes of critical research impact: challenging policy; empowering resistances; platforming voices; nurturing new critical publics; and envisioning alternatives. These five modes signal potential for thinking about research impact in ways that support critical goals.

show abstract

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

Cited by 69 publications

References 34 publications

Exploring the evolution of engagement between academic public health researchers and decision-makers: from initiation to dissolution

Exploring the evolution of engagement between academic public health researchers and decision-makers: from initiation to dissolution

Writing impact case studies: a comparative study of high-scoring and low-scoring case studies from REF2014

Critical research impact: On making space for alternatives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About