October 2020

This month reports summarises four articles that in/directly relate to the impact of universities. The first reports on the dynamics that influence the setting of research agendas within the social sciences based on self-reported surveys (Horta & Santos, 2019). The second piece of research claims that the REF evaluation of research impact influences scholarship into modality that is counter to its traditional focus (Crawford, 2020). The third article studied the challenges that occur with assessment frameworks boundary conditions and producing impact case studies (Tsey et al. 2019). The last study by Featherston et al. (2020) suggests that academic work-life balance is detrimental for good physical and mental health due to the constant performance measurements.

1. They conducted a survey amongst 600+ academics that published in the all Scopus indexed Higher Education journals over the past 10 years. They found that institutional managerialism does influence research topic choice. With institutions, that are resource rich, opting for more conservative research agendas’. They speculate this happens because the dependence of funding positively rewards such behaviour, and the conformity and business minded institutional reward system encourages such outcomes (albeit they being counterproductive for innovation and collegiality).

2. The paper is written by a criminologist, who acted as case study author for both the REF 2014 & 2021, panel member and assisted institutions in preparations for their REF submission. He argues that the emergent impact assessment regime represents a “ritual of verification” that is geared more towards ‘selling impact stories’ rather than nuanced explanation of causality and academic humility. He argues that the impact agenda needs challenging, as otherwise more subdued forms of co-production of knowledge and non-linear forms of impact will fall outside the purview of research.

3. Through the analysis of their own experience of producing an impact case study for the Australian Research Council they identified a number of problems with boundary conditions of the assessment. These were; the restrictive timeframe, the researchers’ affiliation to the institution, attribution of causality, biases in accounting, limited resources to identify the impacts, ethical problems and quality of the evidence to only mention a few. The authors describe the assessment of research impact as “as a ‘wicked problem’ for which there are no easy fix” (p. 183).       

4. Based on a sample size of roughly 600 Australian and 300 UK academics, the research found that the mental health self-assessment is significantly below the average population. Noteworthy, the score of (Australian) men on the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Score was significantly lower than that of women. Furthermore, job strain evidenced by: excessive work hours, intrusive work-related thoughts, reduced physical activity and self-perception that the excessive performance evaluation standards adversely affect both mental and physical health.

1. Horta, H., & Santos, J. M. (2019). Organisational factors and academic research agendas: an analysis of academics in the social sciences. Studies in Higher Education, 1-16.

2. Crawford, A. (2020). Societal Impact as ‘Rituals of Verification’ and The Co-Production of Knowledge. The British Journal of Criminology, 60(3), 493-518.

3. Tsey, K., Onnis, L. A., Whiteside, M., McCalman, J., Williams, M., Heyeres, M., ... & Brown, C. (2019). Assessing research impact: Australian Research Council criteria and the case of Family Wellbeing research. Evaluation and program planning, 73, 176-186.

4. Fetherston, C., Fetherston, A., Batt, S., Sully, M., & Wei, R. (2020). Wellbeing and work-life merge in Australian and UK academics. Studies in Higher Education, 1-15.