IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v31y2022i3p372-384..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

University policy engagement bodies in the UK and the variable meanings of and approaches to impact

Author

Listed:
  • Hannah Durrant
  • Eleanor MacKillop

Abstract

Over the last decade, there has been a proliferation of policy engagement bodies set up within universities worldwide. The present study focuses on the British experience of this phenomenon but with relevance to other contexts. Multiple factors are at play to explain this growth, from the Research Excellence Framework impact agenda (which assesses and ranks the quality of research in UK universities and has been echoed in other countries) to universities’ renewed focus on their civic mission, and a growing demand within policy and practice circles for more research evidence. Based on interviews with senior staff and analysis of their websites and documentary outputs, this article offers a comprehensive catalogue of university policy engagement bodies across the UK, and classifies them into types based on their activities, outputs, impact, and staff. We enrich this categorization by examining the stories these bodies tell to explain how and why they have emerged, and the variable approaches they adopt as they seek to influence both academic and policymaking practices. In doing so, we develop a typology of university policy engagement bodies, and demonstrate how they seek to partake in changing the roles and identities of universities, and their relationship with policymaking.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannah Durrant & Eleanor MacKillop, 2022. "University policy engagement bodies in the UK and the variable meanings of and approaches to impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(3), pages 372-384.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:31:y:2022:i:3:p:372-384.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvac015
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Budtz Pedersen & Jonas Følsgaard Grønvad & Rolf Hvidtfeldt, 2020. "Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities—A literature review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 4-21.
    2. Simon Pardoe, 2014. "Research Impact Unpacked? A Social Science Agenda for Critically Analyzing the Discourse of Impact and Informing Practice," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, April.
    3. Duncan A Thomas & Maria Nedeva & Mayra M Tirado & Merle Jacob, 2020. "Changing research on research evaluation: A critical literature review to revisit the agenda," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(3), pages 275-288.
    4. Stevie Upton & Paul Vallance & John Goddard, 2014. "From outcomes to process: evidence for a new approach to research impact assessment," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 352-365.
    5. Rosalind Gill, 2014. "Academics, Cultural Workers and Critical Labour Studies," Journal of Cultural Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 12-30, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ohid Yaqub & Dmitry Malkov & Josh Siepel, 2023. "How unpredictable is research impact? Evidence from the UK’s Research Excellence Framework," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 273-285.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jorrit P Smit & Laurens K Hessels, 2021. "The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods [Systems Thinking, Knowledge and Action: Towards Better Models and Methods]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 323-335.
    2. Melinda Craike & Bojana Klepac & Amy Mowle & Therese Riley, 2023. "Theory of systems change: An initial, middle-range theory of public health research impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 603-621.
    3. Rhys J. Williams, 2022. "The effect of casual teaching on student satisfaction: evidence from the UK," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 91-111, January.
    4. Peter Weißhuhn & Katharina Helming & Johanna Ferretti, 2018. "Research impact assessment in agriculture—A review of approaches and impact areas," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 36-42.
    5. Sophie Hennekam & Sally Macarthur & Dawn Bennett & Cat Hope & Talisha Goh, 2019. "Inside the net: Women composers’ use of online communities of practice to build and support their careers," Post-Print hal-03232763, HAL.
    6. Ole Henning Sørensen & Jakob Bjørner & Andreas Holtermann & Johnny Dyreborg & Jorid Birkelund Sørli & Jesper Kristiansen & Steffen Bohni Nielsen, 2022. "Measuring societal impact of research—Developing and validating an impact instrument for occupational health and safety," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 118-131.
    7. Yuya Kajikawa, 2022. "Reframing evidence in evidence-based policy making and role of bibliometrics: toward transdisciplinary scientometric research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5571-5585, September.
    8. Julian Hamann & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner, 2022. "Biographical representation, from narrative to list: The evolution of curricula vitae in the humanities, 1950 to 2010," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 438-451.
    9. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy, 2022. "Methods to evaluate institutional responses to performance‐based research funding systems," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 615-634, September.
    10. Ana Alacovska & Joëlle Bissonnette, 2021. "Care-ful Work: An Ethics of Care Approach to Contingent Labour in the Creative Industries," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 135-151, February.
    11. Lai Ma & Rachael Agnew, 2022. "Deconstructing impact: A framework for impact evaluation in grant applications [Evidencing Impact from Art Research: Analysis of Impact Case Studies from the REF 2014]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 289-301.
    12. Elizabeth N. Farley-Ripple & Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz, 2020. "Mapping the community: use of research evidence in policy and practice," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    13. Concepta McManus & Abilio Afonso Baeta Neves & Alvaro Toubes Prata, 2021. "Scientific publications from non-academic sectors and their impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8887-8911, November.
    14. Barış Çıvak & Senem Besler, 2022. "A Critical Analysis of Managerial Control Mechanisms in Hotel Businesses," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    15. J. Stier & S. E. Smit, 2021. "Co-creation as an innovative setting to improve the uptake of scientific knowledge: overcoming obstacles, understanding considerations and applying enablers to improve scientific impact in society," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, December.
    16. Perkmann, Markus & Salandra, Rossella & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Hughes, Alan, 2021. "Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011-2019," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    17. Martin Ricker, 2015. "A numerical algorithm with preference statements to evaluate the performance of scientists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 191-212, April.
    18. Mark Banks, 2019. "Precarity, Biography, and Event: Work and Time in the Cultural Industries," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 24(4), pages 541-556, December.
    19. Papoulias, Stan (Constantina) & Callard, Felicity, 2022. "Material and epistemic precarity: It's time to talk about labour exploitation in mental health research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    20. Václav Linkov & Kieran O’Doherty & Eunsoo Choi & Gyuseog Han, 2021. "Linguistic Diversity Index: A Scientometric Measure to Enhance the Relevance of Small and Minority Group Languages," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:31:y:2022:i:3:p:372-384.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.