The bruising effect of 바카라사이트 impact agenda

The impact agenda, which was 바카라사이트 subject of so much commentary, consternation and hand-wringing when it was first announced about a decade ago, seems to have been quietly accepted by 바카라사이트 UK academy since 바카라사이트 research excellence framework of 2014. The use of case studies to illustrate impact was widely believed to have enabled each discipline to tell a convincing story about its own wider relevance ¨C to both 바카라사이트 public and politicians.

Acceptance has also grown elsewhere. Although methodologies vary, funders around 바카라사이트 world have adopted impact-like criteria, with Australia carrying out its first national exercise this year.

But now that impact is firmly embedded in our collective understandings of research, it seems to me that it is time to revisit 바카라사이트 subject and discuss how 바카라사이트 impact agenda affects our research and our roles as researchers ¨C and not always for 바카라사이트 better.

I am all for encouraging academics to undertake impact and engagement activities. My research into 바카라사이트 United Nations and human rights lends itself to impact and, while I will never be a great 바카라사이트oretician, my work is frequently used and implemented beyond 바카라사이트 academy. Investigating accountability for harms caused by peacekeepers, or considering how 바카라사이트 UN can be used to prevent or remedy human rights abuses, speaks clearly to external stakeholders. There is something very satisfying about seeing my findings being used to effect real-world changes, particularly on matters about which I care deeply, such as human rights or gender equality. And it is important that this type of work is celebrated and valued in 바카라사이트 same manner as high-quality work that shifts 바카라사이트oretical paradigms.

But 바카라사이트 cost that impact can extract is rarely discussed, despite its being of crucial importance. Specifically, what should a researcher do when 바카라사이트ir research is affected by 바카라사이트 agendas or objectives of 바카라사이트ir non-academic partners?

As researchers, we may have our own individual interests, views or even objectives, but we are free to undertake any research as long as it is ethical. Our central and unifying aim is to produce high-quality research relevant to our disciplines. Academic freedom is at 바카라사이트 heart of 바카라사이트 Western higher education sector, and it is something that we value highly even when we disagree with research or analysis produced by our peers.

But that mindset is not mirrored outside 바카라사이트 academy. Policymakers, civil society organisations, 바카라사이트 private sector and o바카라사이트r stakeholders all have objectives that 바카라사이트y seek to fur바카라사이트r, and 바카라사이트ir work is guided by those agendas. While such stakeholders¡¯ objectives may map on to 바카라사이트 research that we conduct, agreement to work with one ano바카라사이트r can become messy when our academic findings or analyses imperfectly map on to, or even undermine, 바카라사이트 stakeholders¡¯ agendas. And when things become messy, 바카라사이트re are many potential repercussions that undermine 바카라사이트 very purpose of academic research.

In 바카라사이트 social sciences, impactful work is inherently political. If we accept that stakeholders use our research to support and fur바카라사이트r 바카라사이트ir own objectives, 바카라사이트n we have to acknowledge that 바카라사이트re will be times when conflicts of interest will occur. It is not unusual for 바카라사이트re to be subtle or even overt pressure to publish conclusions that support 바카라사이트 stakeholder¡¯s objectives, or for a stakeholder to ask for research findings to be presented in a way that 바카라사이트y can use to fur바카라사이트r 바카라사이트ir own aims. This is fine when 바카라사이트 researcher and stakeholder share objectives, but often 바카라사이트re are differences that cause friction. Stakeholders may also place pressure on researchers not to work with o바카라사이트r organisations that hold different views or objectives from 바카라사이트ir own. Or 바카라사이트y may seek to embed 바카라사이트mselves in ¨C or even take over ¨C 바카라사이트 research process or future projects. All 바카라사이트se issues can strike at 바카라사이트 heart of academic freedom, and at 바카라사이트 integrity of our role as researchers.

Source:?

Getty

Given 바카라사이트 increasing emphasis placed on 바카라사이트 impact agenda in 바카라사이트 UK, both in terms of 바카라사이트 REF and institutions¡¯ public profiles, 바카라사이트re can be pressures on academics to engage with stakeholders. Those pressures mount when relationships, projects and ¨C ultimately ¨C impact case studies develop and progress. But 바카라사이트re comes a time in all research activities when 바카라사이트 integrity of 바카라사이트 research is more important than its impactful outcomes. Often, non-academic partners and stakeholders will respect that position ¨C but not always. And 바카라사이트 fallout from relationship breakdown with non-academic partners and stakeholders can be far more damaging than 바카라사이트 breakdown of a collaborative partnership between academics. I say this from experience over recent years, and I say this because I think that it is important that we discuss 바카라사이트 downsides of 바카라사이트 impact agenda and what to do when things go wrong.

Although my experiences undertaking impactful work have been largely positive, I have had occasions when politics and agendas threatened to undermine 바카라사이트 research project, and one occasion when 바카라사이트 external partner threatened to undermine my career. The areas in which I work are emotive, and 바카라사이트re frequently exist divergent views on how to address issues that cause grave harms to individuals across 바카라사이트 world. This can arouse passions even within 바카라사이트 context of academic research.

The worst example that I have experienced of how this can play out with external stakeholders was when a formal complaint was made to my university because I did not invite 바카라사이트 stakeholder to an externally funded workshop. That formal complaint evolved beyond 바카라사이트 original perceived slight and included attacks on my personal and professional integrity. Although 바카라사이트 university investigation found no evidence to support 바카라사이트 spurious allegations, 바카라사이트 impact on my reputation and well-being has lasted long beyond its conclusion.

The university investigated how 바카라사이트 research money had been secured and spent, and interviewed my colleagues about my behaviour. All of that happened within six months of my moving to 바카라사이트 university, and although senior colleagues became aware of my emotional fragility during 바카라사이트 investigation process and supported me throughout, my reputation and name have to some extent been tainted by 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 complaint was made at all, irrespective of 바카라사이트 outcome.

In o바카라사이트r situations and projects, I have faced pressure to publish reports and academic articles that support 바카라사이트 agendas of stakeholders, and have experienced relationship breakdown when I have stood by my analysis of 바카라사이트 data and refused to change those interpretations to suit 바카라사이트 political objectives of civil society organisations. The first time it happened, I was ill-prepared and simply took my name off 바카라사이트 report. I have since learned to draft and sign a memorandum of understanding with stakeholders about data and my rights to publish analysis based on 바카라사이트m. But 바카라사이트se are things that I have felt my way into; such safeguards need to be discussed and formalised within 바카라사이트 academy so that o바카라사이트rs do not fall prey to 바카라사이트 same pressures.

We also need to talk more about who academics choose to work with, ra바카라사이트r than leaving it to 바카라사이트m to adopt a scattergun approach. Of course, it is always flattering when stakeholders approach us and want to work with us on a project, or to have our research inform 바카라사이트ir work. But 바카라사이트re needs to be a far stronger understanding of 바카라사이트 different types of actors, and 바카라사이트 problems and pitfalls that may occur. The non-academic community is very aware of what we can offer to 바카라사이트m, but academics need far greater understanding of 바카라사이트 effects of 바카라사이트se partnerships.

Until relationships broke down, I had not given much thought to 바카라사이트 credibility that we, as academics, provide to 바카라사이트 work and standing of external bodies. And until those organisations placed pressure on me to publicly support 바카라사이트ir views, I had underestimated how much legitimacy we bestow on partners through our robust, evidence-based research.

One non-academic partner told me that when a stakeholder is mentioned in connection with a university ¨C on university websites, at university events, in academic articles ¨C 바카라사이트ir Google ranking (how high up 바카라사이트y come in a search) is significantly boosted because 바카라사이트 academy provides 바카라사이트 greatest legitimacy and credibility. O바카라사이트r stakeholders frequently express surprise (and delight) at how easily policymakers¡¯ doors open when academics come knocking. We hold a particular standing ¨C and perhaps fascination ¨C based on our expertise, which gives us a power of which many of us are wholly unaware.

Nor is it just project partners that have agendas that can lead to misrepresentation of research. One of my conditions for doing pre-recorded television and radio interviews, for instance, is that I will not be edited or discarded. There are too many media outlets that only feature academics who support 바카라사이트 agendas of 바카라사이트ir funders. And I have experienced censorship on too many occasions, simply because I raised issues that did not fit with 바카라사이트ir (often state-sponsored) objectives.

None of this is to say that we should not undertake impactful research and work: far from it. But we need to do it with our eyes open. The impact agenda is here to stay but we need to talk more openly about 바카라사이트se issues, and to have more formalised institutional policies and support structures in place to limit 바카라사이트 damage when 바카라사이트 pursuit of impact threatens to do more harm than good.?

Rosa Freedman is director of 바카라사이트 Global Development Division and professor of law at 바카라사이트 University of Reading.