IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v8y2021i1d10.1057_s41599-021-00727-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research impact evaluation and academic discourse

Author

Listed:
  • Marta Natalia Wróblewska

    (University of Warwick
    National Centre for Research and Development–NCBR)

Abstract

The introduction of ‘impact’ as an element of assessment constitutes a major change in the construction of research evaluation systems. While various protocols of impact evaluation exist, the most articulated one was implemented as part of the British Research Excellence Framework (REF). This paper investigates the nature and consequences of the rise of ‘research impact’ as an element of academic evaluation from the perspective of discourse. Drawing from linguistic pragmatics and Foucauldian discourse analysis, the study discusses shifts related to the so-called Impact Agenda on four stages, in chronological order: (1) the ‘problematization’ of the notion of ‘impact’, (2) the establishment of an ‘impact infrastructure’, (3) the consolidation of a new genre of writing–impact case study, and (4) academics’ positioning practices towards the notion of ‘impact’, theorized here as the triggering of new practices of ‘subjectivation’ of the academic self. The description of the basic functioning of the ‘discourse of impact’ is based on the analysis of two corpora: case studies submitted by a selected group of academics (linguists) to REF2014 (no = 78) and interviews (n = 25) with their authors. Linguistic pragmatics is particularly useful in analyzing linguistic aspects of the data, while Foucault’s theory helps draw together findings from two datasets in a broader analysis based on a governmentality framework. This approach allows for more general conclusions on the practices of governing (academic) subjects within evaluation contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Marta Natalia Wróblewska, 2021. "Research impact evaluation and academic discourse," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00727-8
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-021-00727-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-021-00727-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-021-00727-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Zoe Bulaitis, 2017. "Measuring impact in the humanities: Learning from accountability and economics in a contemporary history of cultural value," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Power, Michael, 2015. "How accounting begins: object formation and the accretion of infrastructure," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64324, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Sixian Hah, 2020. "Valuation discourses and disciplinary positioning struggles of academic researchers—A case study of ‘maverick’ academics," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Claire Donovan, 2011. "State of the art in assessing research impact: introduction to a special issue," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 175-179, September.
    5. Power, Michael, 2015. "How accounting begins: Object formation and the accretion of infrastructure," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 43-55.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jérémy Eydieux & Stéphanie Tillement & Benoît Journé, 2020. "A pragmatist approach to audit practices: two cases of technical dialog from nuclear risk governance in France," Post-Print halshs-03721410, HAL.
    2. Faulconbridge, James R. & Muzio, Daniel, 2021. "Valuation devices and the dynamic legitimacy-performativity nexus: The case of PEP in the English legal profession," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    3. Marlee Tichenor & Sally E Merry & Sotiria Grek & Justyna Bandola-Gill, 2022. "Global public policy in a quantified world: Sustainable Development Goals as epistemic infrastructures [The ethics of a formula: Calculating a financial-humanitarian price for water]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(4), pages 431-444.
    4. Reilley, Jacob & Löhlein, Lukas, 2023. "Theorizing (and) the future of interdisciplinary accounting research," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    5. Rebecca Vine, 2020. "Riskwork in the construction of Heathrow Terminal 2," SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-20, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. Pflueger, Dane & Palermo, Tommaso & Martinez, Daniel, 2019. "Thinking infrastructure and the organization of markets: the creation of a legal market for cannabis in Colorado," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 91412, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Palermo, Tommaso & Power, Michael & Ashby, Simon, 2022. "How accounting ends: self-undermining repetition in accounting lifecycles," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115278, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Charl de Villiers & Matteo La Torre & Vida Botes, 2022. "Accounting and social capital: A review and reflections on future research opportunities," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(4), pages 4485-4521, December.
    9. Oleh Pasko, 2017. "Impact of Calculative Practices on Innovation," Oblik i finansi, Institute of Accounting and Finance, issue 4, pages 66-74, December.
    10. Justyna Bandola-Gill, 2022. "Statistical entrepreneurs: the political work of infrastructuring the SDG indicators [The legitimacy of experts in policy: navigating technocratic and political accountability in the case of global," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(4), pages 498-512.
    11. Martinez, Daniel E. & Cooper, David J., 2019. "Assembling performance measurement through engagement," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    12. Madlen Sobkowiak, 2023. "The making of imperfect indicators for biodiversity: A case study of UK biodiversity performance measurement," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 336-352, January.
    13. Salter, Ammon & Salandra, Rossella & Walker, James, 2017. "Exploring preferences for impact versus publications among UK business and management academics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1769-1782.
    14. Vargha, Zsuzsanna, 2016. "Note from the editor: The results of accounting," economic sociology. perspectives and conversations, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, vol. 17(2), pages 2-6.
    15. Sebastian D. Becker & Martin Messner & Utz Schäffer, 2020. "The Interplay of Core and Peripheral Actors in the Trajectory of an Accounting Innovation: Insights from beyond Budgeting," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 2224-2256, December.
    16. Lukka, Kari & Becker, Albrecht, 2023. "The future of critical interdisciplinary accounting research: Performative ontology and critical interventionist research," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    17. Kornberger, Martin & Pflueger, Dane & Mouritsen, Jan, 2017. "Evaluative infrastructures: Accounting for platform organization," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 79-95.
    18. Gebreiter, Florian, 2022. "A profession in peril? University corporatization, performance measurement and the sustainability of accounting academia," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    19. Arena, Marika & Arnaboldi, Michela & Palermo, Tommaso, 2017. "The dynamics of (dis)integrated risk management: a comparative field study," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 84285, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Kornberger Martin & Pflueger Dane & Mouritsen Jan, 2017. "Evaluative infrastructures : Accounting for platform organization," Post-Print hal-02276737, HAL.

    More about this item

    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:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00727-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    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.