November 2020

This month reports summarises four articles that in/directly relate to the impact of universities. The first paper represents an older article worth revising written in 2011, it foreshadowed the impacts of the introduction of impact as an evaluation element of the REF (Martin, 2011). The second article departs from on interviews with impact evaluators and reflects on the difficulties of judging impact claims (Lauronen, 2020). The third study reports how research impact represents a new form of academic distinction and the challenges that come with it (Watermeyer & Chubb 2019). The last piece of research evaluates all philosophy impact claims submitted to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 and what it means for philosophical inquiry.

1. The motivation behind the introduction of research impact represents a push for greater public accountability. Whilst the present (as of 2011) evaluation methodology is relatively straightforward, the historic direction of the REF’s predecessor of the Research Assessment Exercise suggests that greater complexity will is going to be added own down the line. Presumably, with its own unintended consequences once widely implemented.    

2. This study conducted 14 interviews with experts, professional and representatives of the academic field. The evaluation of impact represents a dilemma, as the no claims of universal good impact are possible. Hence, instead of having an “all purpose” type of assessment, the standardisation ought to focus on the credibility of the claim. The methodological rigour of the accounts, including to which stakeholder and for what purpose the impact is conceptualised as a benefit, would retain space for collaboration and free knowledge inquiry.   

3. The research is based on in-depth interviews with panel members of the REF main panel C (social sciences) and D (humanities). These individuals see ‘research impact’ (as an evaluative dimension) beginning to represent a new avenue for scholarly distinctions. Furthermore, the evaluation of the impact dimension is unlike traditional academic evaluation, where the inherent political nature of impact, represents far more a matter of taste than the ability to interrogate and theorize about ‘facts’.   

4. Departing from an analysis of all philosophy impact case studies to submitted to the REF 2014, they identified five different strains in which philosophy influenced society. These where: dissemination, engagement, provocation, living philosophy and the philosophy of X. The pluralism of how philosophers engage with society is to cause for celebration. However, there are serious shortcomings in the assessment format, in terms of limitation of evidence available within such short accounts, and evidencing more subdued and indirect influences philosophy has upon society.

1. Martin, B. R. (2011). The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster?. Research evaluation, 20(3), 247-254.

2. Lauronen, J. P. (2020). The dilemmas and uncertainties in assessing the societal impact of research. Science and Public Policy, 47(2), 207-218.

3. Watermeyer, R., & Chubb, J. (2019). Evaluating ‘impact’in the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF): liminality, looseness and new modalities of scholarly distinction. Studies in Higher Education, 44(9), 1554-1566.

4. Hicks, D., & Holbrook, J. B. (2020). A Cartography of Philosophy’s Engagement with Society. Minerva, 58(1), 25-45.