August 2020

This month reports summarises four articles that all relate to the research impact. The first paper explores the changing language surrounding research impact (Bayley & Philips, 2019). The second article argues for the creation of impact through the very process of involvement within research (Woolcott et al., 2020). The third study investigates academic motivations in relation to complying with institutional repositories (Holter, 2020). The last item suggest how some government incentives are ineffective in terms of promoting high-quality impactful research (Civera et al., 2020).

1. The impact agenda is now part of UK research institutions and the funding landscape. Consequently, there was a rise in what the authors coined "impact literacy", both in terms of how impact is assessed, understood and communicated. Nevertheless, research impact as an activity eludes an easy ‘one size fits all’ assessment approach. Henceforth, both individual academics and institutions need to take care to update their own impact literacy as not to overlook or alienate more vague forms of impact.  

2. Research impact accounts utilise usually quantifiable evidence that focus on the end-result. The authors argue the actual process of research can also facilitate research impact. In the sense, that it allows communities to develop a better understanding of previously conflicting positions. Furthermore, they stress that the researchers takes a facilitating role that allows for identifying past/future problems. Consequently, the research participants develop a shared language that then facilitates problem identification and solutions. The long-term benefit of this procedural research impact only become apparent in hindsight, and stretch beyond the original research objectives.    

3. Institutional repositories and open access requirements can create frictions between the researchers and their employers, not appreciated to the full extend by both parties. The conflicts arises as the institution are not fully communicating the rationales of why these repositories are necessary, meanwhile researchers perceive them as an extra workload without any tangible personal benefits. Hence, opportunities to develop alternative metrics fail and the conflict is located on an individual level of compliance. In order for better collaboration, it is argued, modes of effective communication need to be developed that outline and identify mutual benefits for everyone involved.      

4. The study evaluates the German ‘Excellence Initiative’ by comparing German and Italian institutions’ research performance based on scholarly publications and reputations. The authors conclude that the design of the German government intervention rewards the quantity of outputs, which do not directly translate into increased research quality and/or research impact. They claim the German government’s classification and evaluation represents a threshold criterion, compelling institutions to invest significant amounts of resources with negligible benefits overall.

1. Bayley, J. E., & Phipps, D. (2019). Building the concept of research impact literacy. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 15(4), 597-606.

2. Woolcott, G., Keast, R., & Pickernell, D. (2020). Deep impact: re-conceptualising university research impact using human cultural accumulation theory. Studies in higher education, 45(6), 1197-1216.

3. Ten Holter, C. (2020). The repository, the researcher, and the REF:“It's just compliance, compliance, compliance”. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(1), 102079.

4. Civera, A., Lehmann, E. E., Paleari, S., & Stockinger, S. A. (2020). Higher education policy: Why hope for quality when rewarding quantity?. Research Policy, 49(8), 104083.