Examining differentiation in academic responses to research impact policy: mediating factors in the context of educational research

Research is…making the emotional dimensions of academics’ research visible

“…The findings in this research foreground cathexis, the investment of mental and emotional energy and passion in research (Neumann 2009), along with the emotional complexities of research for academics; the research process (journey) rather than outputs (or what Brew (2001) called a trading conception of research) so reified in research audit regimes; the bodily, physical work of research and the strong desire many academics have to make a difference in the world (Gale and Parker 2013;O'Connell 2018).…”

The structures and processes governing education research in the UK from 1990–2020: A systematic scoping review

“…Zapp et al (2017) make a similar point when they argue that research proposals to research councils (and the ESRC in particular) now include a separate section to estimate the potential impact of the work, with such funder requirements seen as shaping and driving ‘the research aims and the cognitive development of a discipline’ (p. 391). O’Connell (2019) found that the impact agenda is often perceived by education researchers as having negative effects, including the valuing of certain types of research, internal organisation rankings of departments based on impact, and the strengthening of a managerial culture within education. Positive effects were also reported, however, including the opportunity for departments to extend the reach of their research, and the chance for those engaging in more applied, practice‐based research to gain greater recognition for their work (e.g., Jerome, 2020).…”

“…A number of articles ( n = 27) discussed aspects of the growing agenda of performativity and accountability in HE and the field of education research that has led to an audit culture (Lawy & Armstrong, 2009). The impact of this culture has materialised in a number of different ways, including increasing importance placed on ratings and rankings (e.g., national and international league tables) leading to a culture of competition between universities, departments of education, and individual researchers (e.g., Marques & Powell, 2020); a growing impact agenda (e.g., Papatsiba & Cohen, 2020); and the pressures of the research assessment exercises (e.g., O’Connell, 2019). With regards to this culture, Oancea (2007) notes that accountability is seen as a way to achieve objectivity, consensus and legitimacy in the field of research—and is perhaps not surprising given that the government is a key funder of HE education research and wants to ensure that funds allocated offer value.…”

“…Again, these papers are often critical of assessment frameworks and how they have impacted upon academics’ lives (e.g., Furlong, 2011; Marques et al, 2017; Oancea, 2014). Papers focusing on the impact agenda also come to the foreground in this decade, with a number of authors analysing impact case studies submitted as part of the REF 2014 (e.g., Cain & Allan, 2017; O’Connell, 2019). Researcher identities also continue to be of interest—particularly how regimes of performance and accountability might shape the experiences of researchers from different backgrounds (Holligan & Wilson, 2015; Read & Leathwood, 2018).…”

Institutional hierarchies and research impact: new academic currencies, capital and position-taking in UK higher education

“…Our research contributes to a nascent line of inquiry using disciplinary-level data from the impact element of REF2014 with a focus on (primarily applied) social sciences (Bastow, Dunleavy, and Tinkler 2014, Dunlop 2018, Kellard and Śliwa 2016, O'Connell 2018, Pain, Kesby, and Askins 2011, Slater 2012, K. Smith and Stewart 2017.…”