One size fits all? A comparative review of policy-making in the area of research impact evaluation in the UK, Poland and Norway

The Impact Agenda, introduced with Research Excellence Framework 2014 (REF), constituted a revolution in research evaluation in the UK. ‘Research impact’ (impact of scholarly work outside of academia) became one of three profiles under which research quality is evaluated. This shift in the British evaluation system was followed, and often emulated, by policy-makers around the world. Among them are Norway and Poland. In 2015–18, Norway experimented with impact evaluation using an REF-style impact case study model. It took a light-handed approach, not tying the exercise to funding. Poland has copied elements of the REF verbatim, embedding them within an evaluation framework which is linked funding. The article offers a perspective on impact evaluation regulations adopted in the three countries. There are several analogies between them, including definitions of impact, use of case studies as the basis for evaluation, structure of the impact template, use of English as the language of evaluation, and expert/peer review model of evaluation. They differ when it comes to the mode of introduction of the exercise (gradual vs. shift), aims of the exercise, and level of transparency of the policy-making and evaluation process. The main goal of this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview of the three approaches to impact evaluation against the backdrop of the respective broader science systems. It also provides first inroads into two fundamental questions: (1) How does the articulation of research impact change depending on the goals of the exercise and the broader academic and social context; and (2) How do the effects of the exercise differ from one national context to another?