IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v34y2025iprvaf036..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The cultural impact of the impact agenda in Australia, UK and USA

Author

Listed:
  • Eliel Cohen
  • Kate Williams
  • Jonathan Grant

Abstract

Academic research is increasingly seen as important for solving a range of pressing policy issues, including economic, health, environmental, societal, security and defence. One increasingly prevalent approach is for governments and national bodies to introduce impact as a research evaluation criterion. In this paper, we frame such policies as cultural interventions, that is, as attempts to effect change in the norms and values that inhere within the academic research system. We interviewed n = 90 academics based in three systems which have such policies, Australia, UK and USA. Participants span natural science, engineering, humanities and social sciences, but all have a focus on some aspect of the development, application or (social) implications of artificial intelligence (AI). The norm that impact is/should be a motivation of research was widespread. However, this is not wholly a success story for the impact agenda. One of the cultural impacts of impact policies is to create or increase pre-existing tensions. For example, where members of a discipline feel that impact policies serve other disciplines better, this can create tensions between disciplines as well as a sense of longing for rhetoric to be matched by a reality of greater support and rewards for impact activities. And within fields, strongly implemented impact policies can create a new source of division around what impact should mean for a given discipline, and sharpen underlying contestations about a discipline’s core values and purposes. We conclude with policy implications for the effects and effectiveness of research impact evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Eliel Cohen & Kate Williams & Jonathan Grant, 2025. "The cultural impact of the impact agenda in Australia, UK and USA," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 34, pages 1-036..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf036.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvaf036
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf036.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.