June 2021
This month reports summarises four articles that in/directly relate to the impact of universities. The first two articles are from the Mark Reed et al., where the first represents a grounded theory approach how to assess it (Reed et al. 2021) and the second how to create it (Reed and Fazey 2021). The third paper examines the best ways to provide evidence of research to parliament. The last represents an example of where activist research clashed with the understanding of good research ethics by the Danish parliament.
[1]) They propose a grounded theory approach to summarising the emergent literature on research impact evaluation, increasingly demanded by funders and research evaluation. They propose a typology of five different impact types, in order to better streamline the impact assessment. These are: ‘i) experimental and statistical methods; ii) textual, oral and arts-based methods; iii) systems analysis methods; iv) indicator-based approaches; and v) evidence synthesis approaches.’ Furthermore, they acknowledge that the evaluations of impact are inherently subjective to their interpretation, depending upon time, place and culture the interpretation is situated within.
[2]) The paper represents a conceptual one, where the challenges that university research is meant to address vis-à-vis impact, is outlined in terms of what type of culture is needed in order to facilitate it. They conclude that: “[i]nstead of developing an institutional mission and set of values to which all researchers are expected to subscribe, we argue that intellectual freedom must understand, respect and value differences in ontology, epistemology, values, beliefs and norms.” Whilst rhetorically, and empathetically such sentiments might be appealing, they are logically incongruent for the subset of ardent activists, due to Popper’s paradox of tolerance (i.e. the paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant).
[3]) The paper represents a systematic review of the literature, in what different ways academics use to promote their research findings to influence the political parliamentary process. They summarise their common sense advice as: “Do high quality research; (2) make your research relevant and readable; (3) understand policy processes; (4) be accessible to policymakers: engage routinely, flexible, and humbly; (5) decide if you want to be an issue advocate or honest broker; (6) build relationships (and ground rules) with policymakers; (7) be ‘entrepreneurial’ or find someone who is; and (8) reflect continuously: should you engage, do you want to, and is it working?”
[4]) The research around ‘digital sexual assault’ got mentioned as an example within the Danish parliament, in that it blurs the boundary between research and activism, representing a threat to research integrity. The researcher herself, was irate by this insinuation, launching a staunch defence of her work on twitter (see archived twitter post). Likewise, the journal which published the research also defended the publication, reaffirming the importance of the subject matter and research on the topic (see archived message from journal). Ironically, rather than disproving the labelling, the line of defence chosen, is to re-affirm the activism and making it an ethical prerogative of the research itself. Or to quote the researcher herself: “my research is activist.”
[1] Reed, M. S., Ferré, M., Martin-Ortega, J., Blanche, R., Lawford-Rolfe, R., Dallimer, M., & Holden, J. (2021). Evaluating impact from research: A methodological framework. Research Policy, 50(4), 104147.
[2] Reed MS and Fazey I (2021) Impact Culture: Transforming How Universities Tackle 21st Century Challenges. Front. Sustain. 2:662296. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2021.662296
[3] Oliver, K., & Cairney, P. (2019). The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 1-11.
[4] Uldbjerg, S. (2021). Writing victimhood: A methodological manifesto for researching digital sexual assault. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning, 29(2), 27-39.
