Responding to an emerging debate around the changing nature of the impact agenda in the UK, Richard Watermeyer, argues that the current moment presents a point of change; an opportunity to exorcise the ghosts of previous regimes of incentivising and assessing impact, and step towards a more meaningful social compact

Watermeyer, Richard

English

LSE Research Online

Impact 'agenda' or impact 'phantom'?LSE Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/103717/Version: Published VersionOnline resource:Watermeyer, Richard (2020) Impact 'agenda' or impact 'phantom'? Impact of Social Sciences Blog (31 Jan 2020). Blog Entry. lseresearchonline@lse.ac.ukhttps://eprints.lse.ac.uk/ ReuseItems deposited in LSE Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the LSE Research Online record for the item.Impact	‘agenda’	or	impact	‘phantom’?	Responding	to	an	emerging	debate	around	the	changing	nature	of	the	impact	agenda	in	theUK,	Richard	Watermeyer,	argues	that	the	current	moment	presents	a	point	of	change;	an	opportunity	toexorcise	the	ghosts	of	previous	regimes	of	incentivising	and	assessing	impact,	and	step	towards	a	more	meaningfulsocial	compact.	Jude	Fransman’s	excellent	piece	in	THE	deliberating	the	consequences	of	plans	by	UKRI	to	abandon	pathway-to-impact	statements	(PIS)	as	formal	aspects	of	research	funding	applications,	has	pushed	much	of	my	own	recentthinking	in	relation	to	the	impact	‘agenda’	and	the	degree	to	which	it	might	be	more	accurately	considered	an	impact‘phantom’?	If	I’m	right,	UKRI’s	plans	may	be	not	so	much	a	‘requiem’	for	the	impact	agenda	as	James	Wilsdon	haspondered	but	a	stage	in	its	exorcism.In	the	course	of	my	own	deep-dive	into	the	experiences	of	the	rank	and	file	of	publicly-invested,involved	and	embedded	academics	and	their	counterpart	public	engagement	professionals	working	in	universitiesthe	length	and	breadth	of	the	UK,	I	have	been	repeatedly	told	that	the	positive	influence	of	external	drivers	onacademics’	attitudes	and	behaviours	is	not	nearly	so	pronounced	as	advertised	in	‘official’	accounts.	In	fact,	the	vastmajority	of	those	I	have	spoken	to,	report	that	cultural-uplift	‘innovations’	like	PIS	are	more	inhibitive	thanenabling	for	academics	in	making	(and	not	just	articulating)	their	societal	contributions;	especially	in	an	environmentwhere	excellence	has	become	fetishized	and	where	the	lessons	of	failure,	integral	to	the	learning	journeys	of	all	inhigher	education,	are	frowned	upon	or	unforgiven.	Many	I	have	spoken	to	complain	that	the	behavioural	andattitudinal	correctives	of	funding	and	regulatory	innovators	as	self-appointed	architects	of	virtue	are	blindlyutopian,	disconnected	from	grassroot	realities	–	particularly	the	inequities	and	occupational	precarities	suffered	bythose	committed	to	engagement	–	and	unfairly	perpetuate	an	archetypal	characterisation	of	academics	as	deficit.For	those	whose	contribution	is	more	humble,	less	showy,	but	no	less	valuable,	an	impact	agenda	issaid	to	have	infirmed	their	practice	and	cast	doubt	on	their	self-concept	as	engaged	academics.Moreover,	they	are	said	to	neglect	a	long	and	sustained	track	record	of	public	interface,	the	kind	of	which	habituallyfalls	shy	of,	or	otherwise	intentionally	avoids	the	gaze	of	audit	technologies	and	therefore	seems	not	to	‘count’.	Forthose	whose	contribution	is	more	humble,	less	showy,	but	no	less	valuable,	an	impact	agenda	is	said	to	haveinfirmed	their	practice	and	cast	doubt	on	their	self-concept	as	engaged	academics.	Analogously,	it	is	felt	to	havefurther	undermined	the	status	of,	and	intensified	the	prejudice	suffered	by	many	engaged	academics	as	appliedresearchers,	where	their	peers	–	self-conceived	as	‘proper’	academics	practising	basic	science	–	are	either	enviousof	their	impact	capital;	(legitimately)	suspicious	of	the	veracity	of	impact	claim-making,	where	stylistic	virtuosity	hasbeen	shown	to	trump	evidence-based	assertion;	or	else	dismissive	of	PIS	as	an	indicator	of	scientific	quality	andesteem,	certainly	of	the	kind	that	might	sway	funding	decisions,	or	even	appeal	to	funding	reviewers	as	typicallyimpact-agnostic	and	inexpert.I	have	also	heard	confession	of	their	disinterest	and	disowning	of	PIS,	as	aspects	of	their	grant	applications	that	areeither	auto-filled,	or	delegated	to	impact	specialists	as	ghost-writers.	Many	‘true-believers’	have	also	spoken	of	theirfrustration	at	funding	leniency	and	a	failure	on	the	part	of	funders	to	take	PIS	seriously	both	in	peer	review	and	inthe	case	of	post-award	by	neglecting	to	either	follow	up	on	impact	claims	or	audit	monies	allocated	for	impact	thatare	often	found	to	be	spent	unapologetically	on	other	non-impact	related	activities.	An	impact	agenda	is	even	saidto	have	disincentivised	those	more	engaged	researchers’	commitment	to	making	a	public	contribution,	as	they	arehaunted	by	a	sense	of	ill-fit	with	the	prescriptions	of	performance	regimes	and	those	who	demand	something‘better’	and	always	‘innovative’.	Indeed,	for	many	of	the	already-engaged,	the	imposition	of	prophesying	the	impactof	their	research	is	claimed	to	not	only	stimulate	creative	fictions,	but	restrict	their	public	efforts	where	an	impactagenda	has	caused	them	to	prioritise	forms	of	engagement	–	and	even	research	–	assured	to	yield	tangible	and/orhard	results.Impact of Social Sciences Blog: Impact ‘agenda’ or impact ‘phantom’? Page 1 of 2		Date originally posted: 2020-01-31Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/01/31/impact-agenda-or-impact-phantom/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/And	so,	while	the	higher	education	community	may	strive	to	do	better	and	while	‘opportunities’	to	focus	minds	insuch	terms	may	be	entirely	laudable,	these	‘opportunities’	ought	to	be	reflective	of	and	responsive	to	thevarious	(problematic)	contexts	of	an	existing	research	culture.	Moreover,	channelling	Samuel	Bowles,	there	isa	need	to	face	up	to	the	limited	efficacy	and	extent	of	incentives	as	any	kind	of	substitute	for	good	citizens.Following	this	train	of	thought,	we	might	consider	that	the	potential	of	academics	as	‘good	citizens’,	even	virtuousagents,	may	be	plausible	only	in	so	much	as	their	agency	is	given	license	to	flourish.	This	potential	is	likely	to	bebetter	mobilised	when	the	inconsistencies	of	the	current	–	if	well	intentioned	–	funding	formula	are	succeeded	bya	substantive	and	sustained	overhaul	and	a	reinvestment	in	(a	currently	toxic)	research	culture.	One	that	moves	itaway	from	the	confinement	of	status	competition	and	towards	an	honest	embrace	of	the	public	sphere.	The	greatesthandicap	to	academics’	fullest	immersion	in	the	production	of	public	goods	may	be	thus	not	so	much	their	owngreatly	exaggerated	apathy,	but	the	parsimony	and/or	pretence	of	many	institutions	in	supporting	a	civic	mission,hand-in-hand	with	the	hyper-inflation	of	performance	demands	and	the	flimsiness	of	a	policy	architecture.	Thecurrent	challenge	is	therefore	to	disentangle	engaged	research	from	the	hegemony	of	its	fiscal	rationalisation;	atask	predicated	upon	a	far	more	momentous	reset.	Note:	This	article	gives	the	views	of	the	author,	and	not	the	position	of	the	LSE	Impact	Blog,	nor	of	the	LondonSchool	of	Economics.	Please	review	our	comments	policy	if	you	have	any	concerns	on	posting	a	comment	below.Featured	Image	Credit	adapted	from	Stefano	Pollio,	via	Unsplash	(CC0	1.0)Impact of Social Sciences Blog: Impact ‘agenda’ or impact ‘phantom’? Page 2 of 2		Date originally posted: 2020-01-31Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/01/31/impact-agenda-or-impact-phantom/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/

Impact 'agenda' or impact 'phantom'?

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/103717/1/impactofsocialsciences_2020_01_31_impact_agenda_or_impact.pdf

Impact 'agenda' or impact 'phantom'?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online