Academics should be engaged with the wider world, but impact, if it is routinised, loses its potential to change the dynamic of a system. Chris Hackley writes that the research that influences policy should be celebrated but we must be wary of the risk that the impact measurement will begin to define what is to be measured

Hackley, Chris

LSE Research Online

11/22/2012Why universities and grant bodies shouldn’t try to over-manage research impactblogs.lse.ac.uk /impactofsocialsciences/2012/11/22/hackley-over-manage-research-impact/Academics should be engaged with the wider world, but impact, if it is routinised, loses its potential tochange the dynamic of a system. Chris Hackley writes that the research that influences policy shouldbe celebrated but we must be wary of the risk that the impact measurement will begin to define what isto be measured.On the face of it, it doesn’t seem much of an imposition for universities to demonstrate that a smallproportion of their research is noticed by the world at large. We are publicly subsidized institutionsafter all, and accountable to the taxpayer. In fact we really ought to play a bigger part in public policydebate than we do. But does the way this engagement is framed by HEFCE as ‘impact’ risk theintellectual neutrality of universities?More specifically, if universities self-consciously pursue policy related research in order to maximise revenues fromimpact, are they effectively conscripting their academics into the dominant ideology of government?  I’ve been fortunate in my career never to have experienced an ‘over-managed’ research environment, and at RoyalHolloway independent research is especially well-supported. But it seems likely that, over time, the measurementand funding of impact could exert an influence on university or department missions and research strategies.It may be inevitable that the measurement of impact will change universities’ behaviour, just as the presence ofresearchers changes the phenomena being investigated. The amount of funding attached to impact is notinsignificant, and there is already prima facie evidence that the REF is having an effect on resource allocation andresearch priorities. Some universities have responded in some pretty left-field ways to previous RAE initiatives, so itis unsurprising if they over-think and over-manage impact.  It’s up to Vice Chancellors if they want to hire hacks towrite their impact case studies or policy wonks to shape their research agenda, although it’s probably unnecessary.Similarly, grant awarding bodies that ask for an impact plan with proposals are probably just wasting everyone’stime, but there may be other risks in trying to ‘over manage’ impact.       I’ve written two impact case studies for my school of management to consider for the REF. In each case, theresearch began without any thought of impact or policy engagement. What is more, the findings ran up against theprevailing government line at the time. I think there is, in each, a powerful circumstantial case that a contribution topublic understanding was made that eventually filtered through to government and business policy circles, but itseems to me that the integrity of this is vested in the fact that our findings suggested that government policy (in twoquite different spheres) was initially misconceived in important respects.  On the one hand, I feel slightly shamefaced to craft these impact cases, after the fact, in terms of a goal that wasnever part of the initial motive for doing the research. It’s probably unwise to admit to fortunate timing or serendipitywhen rationalising impact, but they play a part. On the other hand, isn’t there an added integrity to incidental impact?Shouldn’t an ‘impact’ disturb equilibrium? That being so, research that is conceived for its impact potential mightdisappear up its own axiology. Impact, routinised, loses its potential to change the dynamic of a system. If a study isdesigned to dovetail into existing policy, is its value compromised? Designing impact into research might also bedesigning impact out of it.          There is another danger of trying to design impact into research. Impact is more than media coverage, but the latteris often implicated in the former, at some level, either as a proxy for contributions to public debate andunderstanding, or as a matter of public record in minutes and reports. The supporting evidence I’ve marshalled inmy impact cases includes URLs to media coverage and to PDFs of consultation and policy documents. URLs make1/2good evidence, I should think. But there is a process of selection that takes place in the way research findings arenoticed, written about, referenced and shared in media stories, in policy papers and on the internet, by researchers,journalists, policy analysts and so on. This selection is inevitably framed by institutional values and imperatives.   A liberal-pluralist view might hold that pushing universities to engage with public policy debates is a good thing fordemocracy. As I said at the beginning, I think we should have our conversations with the wider world as well as witheach other, and trying to engage the public with research can be salutary for academics and, I think, valuable to all.A critical Marxist viewpoint, on the other hand, would suggest that institutional bias, unconsciously internalised byjournalists, researchers and other actors, predisposes the selection of findings that fit within the prevailing ideology.Research becomes noticed, repeated, shared and incorporated into policy fora not because it challenged theprevailing assumptions, but because it supports them. If academics touch this petrie dish of ideology, the argumentgoes, we too might become infected.There is sometimes an assumption that universities merely furnish policy debates with evidence bases, butevidence is never neutral. In a policy context, epistemology becomes political, and evidence merely anotherrhetorical device. Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model, as a kind of trade-off between the two extremes,might offer a dialectical version of how research distils through interlocking media and policy arenas. Policycontributions from research, in the form of papers posted on the web or presented at policy meetings, blogs or pressreleases, shared, tweeted and blogged, bounce back and forth between ideological resistance from institutionalforces on the one hand, and the liberal imperative to texture media debate with heterogeneous views on the other.That a small proportion of university research might have an influence on cultural or economic policy or publicunderstanding is something to be highlighted and celebrated, and perhaps built into accountability systems. After all,universities have always done this anyway.  What we must beware of is the risk that the measurement defines whatis to be measured.                     Note: This article gives the views of the author(s), and not the position of the Impact of Social Sciences blog, nor ofthe London School of Economics.About the author:Chris Hackley established the Marketing teaching and research group at Royal Holloway, University of London, asits first Professor of Marketing, in 2004. His research and writing take a critical and socio-cultural stance onmarketing and consumer cultural policy issues. Recent published work includes a Bakhtinian analysis of youth bingedrinking, a critical appraisal of Ofcom’s new paid-for TV product placement rules, and an anthropological analysis ofthe fading TV phenomenon that was X Factor. Copyright © The Author (or The Authors) - Unless otherwise stated, this work is licensed under a CreativeCommons Attribution Unported 3.0 License.2/2

Why universities and grant bodies shouldn’t try to over-manage research impact

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online