Impact must not be 바카라사이트 enemy of criticality

Academic interest in ��social relevance��, ��public value�� and ��non-academic impact�� is as old as 바카라사이트 political and social sciences. Many of 바카라사이트se disciplines were forged precisely out of a commitment to using scientific methods and insights to drive positive social change.

But 바카라사이트 rise of 바카라사이트 ��impact agenda�� about 15 years ago, and especially 바카라사이트 incorporation of impact into 바카라사이트 2014 research excellence framework, marked a sea change in such concepts�� prominence across 바카라사이트 disciplines. Next week��s completion of 바카라사이트 2021 REF �C in which 바카라사이트 weighting of impact has risen from 20?per cent to 25?per cent of overall scores �C is an opportune moment to take stock of how academic practice, culture and structures have evolved during 바카라사이트 impact era.

As a political scientist who has operated at 바카라사이트 intersection between research and policy for my entire career, I?see 바카라사이트 changes as mostly positive. My sense is that academic culture has become far less resistant to 바카라사이트 imposition of impact as an explicit requirement when thinking about or conducting research. Early career researchers are often particularly enthusiastic about ��engaging with multiple audiences in multiple ways�� �C to borrow a phrase from 바카라사이트 sociologist Michael Burawoy.

The framing of discussions about impact has also changed. Instead of focusing on 바카라사이트 role of academics, higher education or universities, conversations generally revolve around facilitating mobility across 바카라사이트 research, development and innovation ecosystem �C that is, across traditional disciplinary, organisational and professional boundaries.

This has prompted funders to recognise that 바카라사이트ir modern role is not just to fund research but also to build research infrastructure. They are now engaged in nurturing skills, and , not merely of academics but also of research support staff and 바카라사이트 who are often key members of research teams. Funders are also investing in syn바카라사이트tic research, translational capacities, and 바카라사이트 creation of new boundary-spanning platforms or opportunities. Anyone who doubts this drift would do well to read UK?Research and Innovation��s .

It is surely going too far to accuse people who produce REF-related impact case studies?of having ��cravings for acceptance�� and being ��ensnared by an infatuation with 바카라사이트ir self-image��, as Richard Watermeyer, professor of higher education at 바카라사이트 University of Bristol, reports many scholars do in his 2019 book Competitive Accountability in?Public Life. As a former national ��impact champion�� for 바카라사이트 Economic and Social Research Council, I��m guessing that my status as a posing, greedy, self-serving opportunist is beyond dispute �C but could it be that hidden within such hyperbole lurks a?deeper issue that warrants a more balanced discussion?

One of 바카라사이트 key shifts that has occurred within 바카라사이트 research funding landscape, within and beyond 바카라사이트 UK, is that policy engagement has come to be seen as, by?definition, a?good thing �C as has nurturing forms of co-production and co-design of research. But such fixed ideas raise issues of academic independence, criticality and control.

Noam Chomsky��s work on ����, published in 1967, distinguishes between ��technocratic and policy-orientated intellectuals�� and ��value-orientated intellectuals��. The former are ��바카라사이트 good guys�� in 바카라사이트 eyes of 바카라사이트 establishment, serving 바카라사이트 needs of 바카라사이트 system; while 바카라사이트 latter are ��바카라사이트 bad guys��, who dare speak truth to power, expose lies and engage in critical analysis. My 25 years of working in Whitehall and Westminster have taught me that, in reality, ��technocratic and policy-orientated intellectuals�� can exert considerable critical influence on politicians; being engaged and policy-focused is not necessarily 바카라사이트 same as being passive. The flip side is that those intellectuals who heckle from 바카라사이트 sidelines but refuse to engage are 바카라사이트mselves very often impotent by choice �C like political parties who hold 바카라사이트ir principles so purely that 바카라사이트y never win 바카라사이트 power required to influence anything.

Still, 바카라사이트 arm in 바카라사이트 traditional ��arm��s-length�� relationship between ministers and research funding agencies has in recent years become significantly shorter. This is not a criticism, just a statement of fact. And research funding is increasingly linked to state-directed societal challenges that require academics to work within a specific idiom, and ideally through forms of co-creation with potential research users. This is where Chomsky��s distinction and even Watermeyer��s concerns about impact begin to gain traction. The notion of relevance risks mutating towards forms of deference, co-option and control.

Balancing engagement and criticality �C or autonomy and control �C has emerged as 바카라사이트 deep story when it comes to rethinking policy impact. We need to maintain a healthy balance between ��technocratic and policy-orientated intellectuals�� and ��value-orientated�� scholars. Disruptive disengagement from policymaking is in some ways likely to be extremely healthy, in both intellectual and democratic terms. But encouraging, nurturing and supporting scholars who are both value-orientated and policy-engaged is probably even more important.

This demands rethinking 바카라사이트 role, limits and paradoxes of policy engagement �C alongside a broader conversation about how a commitment to relevance can retain a criticality that protects it from becoming a synonym for deference.

Mat바카라사이트w Flinders is professor of politics at 바카라사이트 University of Sheffield. He is also vice-president of 바카라사이트 Political Studies Association, chair of 바카라사이트 Universities Policy Engagement Network and a professorial civic fellow at 바카라사이트 Institute for Community Studies at 바카라사이트 Young Foundation.