Author
Listed:
- Ruth A O’Connor
- Sejul Malde
- A Wendy Russell
- Maya Haviland
- Kate Bellchambers
- Kirsty Jones
- Ginny M Sargent
- Sara Bice
Abstract
University research has a vital role to play in addressing complex societal challenges. The research impact (RI) agenda should enable this but is critiqued for creating an audit culture focused narrowly on economic returns on investment and university rankings. There is a need for alternative approaches that better support research for societal benefit. A current hiatus in research assessment processes in Australia provides an opportunity to explore alternatives. In this study, we elicited responses from 53 university staff in academic and professional roles to explore what constitutes research impact in practice, and what helps to achieve it. The responses highlight a disconnect between the current institutional framing of research impact and both the practices and values of those seeking to create societal benefit through research. We identify four tensions between the motivations and practice of research staff on one hand and the research impact agenda on the other. Tensions related to (1) narrow definitions of impact inadequately encompassing valuable work; (2) the premise of linear impact pathways inaccurately portraying the complexity of impact; (3) assessment rewarding individual endeavour over collaboration; and (4) assessment focusing on auditing rather than learning through evaluation. We take these findings and apply current theories of public and cultural value to offer ‘research value’ as an alternative approach to address the four tensions and nurture research for societal benefit.
Suggested Citation
Ruth A O’Connor & Sejul Malde & A Wendy Russell & Maya Haviland & Kate Bellchambers & Kirsty Jones & Ginny M Sargent & Sara Bice, 2026.
"From ‘research impact’ to ‘research value’: a new approach to support research for societal benefit,"
Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 35, pages 1-002..
Handle:
RePEc:oup:rseval:v:35:y:2026:i::p:rvag002.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
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:35:y:2026:i::p:rvag002.. 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.