September 2020

This month reports summarises four articles that are in/directly related to the impact of universities. The first explores the newly developed discourse around reporting research impact (Reichard et al. 2020). The second piece of research claims that hitherto there is no unified way to report important research impact within academic CVs (Boland et al. 2020). The third article studied why academics engage with unfunded research (Edwards, 2020). The last study suggest that the increasing student debt empowers greater neoliberal manegerialism of universities (Goodnight et al., 2015).

1. Based on a cross section of impact case studies reported to the Research Excellence Framework 2014, the researchers’ analysed if there were patterns in the language used and how that related to high scoring/low scoring. They found that high scoring case studies used direct language, simplifying the causality of how impact arose, stating forthrightly what has changed based on the research. Meanwhile, low scoring case studies adhered more to the implicit rules of academic writing with its expression of uncertainties. Henceforth, a new and distinct genre of academic writing is developing. 

2. The authors surveyed health researchers’ in relation to how they report research impact within their CVs. They found that there was as of yet no standard way to report research impact, albeit funders and other agencies are increasingly requesting this type of information. They predict that impact is going to receive more prominence in issues of career advancement.  Similarly, they conclude that there should be a greater push for standardisation of how such information is reported. 

3. Whilst the research was not ‘unfunded’ per se, but rather self-funded, it was commonly regarded as a resource drain to institutions by the managerial class. Meanwhile, the researchers’ themselves regarded it as an integral part of their academic identity (i.e. ‘it is what we do’). Thereby, curiosity driven research agendas are perceived as being restricted by the short-term, goal-oriented agendas of funders and other ‘users’ of research. Nevertheless, it became clear that such research had tangible benefits. Therefore, as much as unfunded research represented resistance, it also exhibited conformity in that the research process aligned with the entrepreneurial ethos that neoliberal universities are promoting, ultimately benefiting them from the perceived resistance/wastefulness.   

4. Political, managerial, technological, demographical and other factors all align in creating a complex web for less, and not more, student autonomy. The bar of entry (for students) into society through accreditation is ever rising, ultimately fuelling the increases in student debt. The de facto outsourcing of risks from institutions to that of students reveals an unsustainable dimension of the neoliberal university teaching model. If intellectual criticality is meant to remain, alternatives are needed.   

1. Reichard, B., Reed, M. S., Chubb, J., Hall, G., Jowett, L., Peart, A., & Whittle, A. (2020). Writing impact case studies: a comparative study of high-scoring and low-scoring case studies from REF2014. Nature Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 1-17.

2. Boland, L., Brosseau, L., Caspar, S., Graham, I. D., Hutchinson, A. M., Kothari, A., McNamara, K., McInnes, E., Angel, M. & Stacey, D. (2020). Reporting health research translation and impact in the curriculum vitae: a survey. Implementation Science Communications, 1(1), 1-11.

3. Edwards, R. (2020). Why do academics do unfunded research? Resistance, compliance and identity in the UK neo-liberal university. Studies in Higher Education, 1-11.

4. Goodnight, G. T., Hingstman, D., & Green, S. (2015). The student debt bubble: Neoliberalism, the university, and income inequality. Journal of Cultural Economy, 8(1), 75-100.