The Research Impact Agenda

Navigating the Impact of Impact

Martyna Śliwa, Neil Kellard

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000519730
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: R&D
• Index: Business

This book contributes to the growing body of work addressing the processes and consequences of national governments' audits of the performance of higher education institutions (HEIs) in different countries. The book discusses one recent area of focus within these audits, namely the measurement of universities' societal and economic impact.

The Research Impact Agenda offers a problematisation of the research impact agenda, especially in relation to the impact generated by academics based in schools of business and management. It scrutinises the often unintended but nevertheless significant consequences of this agenda for individuals and higher education institutions, such as the reproduction of existing inequalities in academia and the crowding out of other key activities of business schools. It puts forward a range of recommendations for researchers, policymakers, university and business school leaders, and individual academics.

The book will be of interest to a wide range of readers – regardless of their formal position, organisational affiliation or career stage – who consider it important to reduce and remove inequalities and inequities within the HE sector and to make universities and business schools more inclusive. The readers will benefit from the opportunity to engage in reflection aimed at transforming the current framing, delivery and assessment of business and management research impact.

1 The idea of university and its societal role

DOI: 10.4324/9781003090465-1

1.1 Introduction

We began working on this book in June 2020 in London, with the world changing in front of our eyes as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our work as researchers and educators had to move online nearly overnight, and for the first time in our professional lives we had to confront questions about how, in the new and uncertain circumstances, we are going to serve our students and colleagues, our research communities, and all other stakeholders for whom we engage in academic work. Along with the changes in the immediate realities of academic life, higher education (HE) policy decisions relevant to issues that are central to the focus of this book, i.e. the impact of academic research beyond academia, have also been changing. For example, the submission deadline for the next Research Excellence Framework (REF) audit in the UK has been postponed until March 2021. It is still uncertain how the generation of impact in the current REF period has been affected by the pandemic, and how the actual assessment of impact is going to reflect the unprecedented events of the past few months. Obviously, with the rapidly transforming world, the context of our thinking about impact has changed; what is more, since we have been witnessing how quickly priorities can shift in social, political, and economic terms, we have also been sensitised to the significance of context for our perceptions of why and how academic work matters. A reflection upon ‘context’, therefore, offers a helpful point of departure for our discussion of impact. We begin with contextualising the subject of academic research impact against the background of the evolution of broader debates about the societal role of universities, the rise of university-based management education, and the understanding of how, contemporarily, universities impact the society and economy.

1.2 An historical understanding of the societal role of universities

We locate our consideration of impact within a long-standing debate about the role of universities, which can be traced back to the ideas underpinning Wilhelm von Humboldt’s reforms in 19th century Prussia. The Humboldtian model of university was first implemented with the establishment of the University of Berlin in 1810. This model came to dominate European higher education for more than a hundred years, and served as the conceptual basis of the foundation of North American research universities. The institutional formula behind the Humboldtian idea of university was developed in response to what Humboldt – whose formal position in the Prussian government was Undersecretary of State – and those surrounding him, considered a key political problem of the time:

How is it possible to construct and then secure the necessary autonomous institutional order, or framework, to modern science and the pursuit of qualified knowledge and, at the same time, prevent it from being corrupted or even destroyed by other mighty and legitimate forces in society such as politics, economy, and religion? (Nybom, 2003: 143)

Humboldt’s vision made it clear that universities should be autonomous in determining their own priorities and activities. Rather than limiting their autonomy, the obligation of the state was to protect it, and to promote ‘higher learning’ (Bildung), which was seen as central to the creation of national culture. Similarly, independence from external influences and an intellectual freedom to pursue truth-seeking and learning were considered as necessary conditions for ensuring universities’ relevance to the state and the society. Humboldt himself believed that protecting the autonomy of universities was ultimately in the state’s and monarch’s interest. Most of all, however, his idea of university was rooted in the conviction ‘that science and “virtue” (Sittlichkeit) could only prosper and reach its highest potential outside, and preferably above, the real political world’ (Nybom, 2003: 16). As a consequence of framing the pursuit of truth-seeking as virtue, those engaging in it were also to be given autonomy and freedom to do this, whilst at the same time not being involved in any activity that directly related to political or societal matters. Inherent in Humboldt’s model of university was also the conflation of research and education, with the former given primacy over the latter. Humboldt, moreover, envisaged a hierarchy of university subjects, with philosophy – and later also history – fulfilling a ‘supervisory’ role over more applied disciplines of knowledge: medicine, technology, and law. At the top of this hierarchy was philosophy; as a subject seen to be directly concerned with truth, it was attributed the highest value. The remaining disciplines, as associated with usefulness, were considered to be less ‘noble’ pursuits.

The establishment of the Humboldtian model of university resulted, throughout the 19th century, in the gradual ascent of the university – at the expense of the church – to the status of the most influential cultural and intellectual institution within the state not only in Germany but also in other European countries as well as North America. In addition, Humboldt’s ideas exerted influence on thinking about the role of universities in other countries. Specifically, in the UK context, the scholarly and public debates about the purpose of higher education began with the publication, in the mid-19th century, of John Newman’s The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated. Echoing Humboldt’s arguments, Newman’s thesis rested on the assumption that the key preoccupation of universities ought to be the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. This, to Newman, did not mean that knowledge should be generated in the form of pure research but that – along with moral and religious training – it should form part of a person’s education. Central to fulfilling this idea of university as a place of the search for truth was, following Newman’s own experience as a college tutor at Oxford (Anderson, 2010), the close pastoral teacher – student relationship. Underpinning the ideal of a union of teaching and research was the assumption that both teachers and students were to engage in the task of preserving and updating the existing body of theory and knowledge. Importantly, Newman’s views about the role of university were closely linked to his belief in the superiority of ‘universal knowledge’ over any specific, specialised type of training. Universities’ key task was to offer general education, with an emphasis on broad, non-vocational training of the mind, in areas such as pure sciences or the arts. This understanding of the role of universities did not include subjects of technical or vocational nature.

Both Humboldt’s and Newman’s ideas about universities’ autonomy extended over the governance of universities, which was not expected to be subject to external mechanisms of accountability. Rather, according to the dominant perception, universities’ right to self-governance constituted a necessary and positive ‘force which enables universities to appoint academic staff without external interference, decide whom to admit as students, identify what they should teach and how it should be taught, control their own standards, establish their own academic priorities and determine internally their patterns of future development’ (Farrant, 1987: 48). In other words, an understanding of universities commensurate with Humboldt’s and Newman’s ideas implied a clear boundary between the state and the universities, with the former given the role to provide funding and to ensure and protect the autonomy of the latter.

Remembering Humboldt’s and Newman’s influential contributions to our understanding of the purpose of universities is relevant to the current discussion of impact in the context of contemporary business schools for two reasons: 1) it demonstrates that an approach to thinking about universities through the lens of evaluating their contribution against a set of utilitarian criteria concerned with their direct ‘usefulness’ to society and economy, as determined by the state’s authorities, need not be taken for granted. Whilst not an entirely new approach, it stands in contrast to the 19th century ideal of university as an autonomous institution dedicated to pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake; 2) it also highlights that academic disciplines represented in research and scholarship conducted within business schools would not have been seen as part of universities’ work at the time of these early debates about the purpose of universities, and of the implementation of the Humboldtian model of higher education. In the next section, following from this background to the 19th century ‘idea of the university’, we discuss in more detail the evolution of thinking about universities’ societal role in the 20th century towards a more utilitarian view. Within this context, we then elaborate on the inclusion of business schools within universities.

1.3 A new role of universities in the era of HE expansion

Universities in the UK, as well as across the whole of Europe, were transformed in the first half of the twentieth century. The adoption of the Humboldtian model, coupled with the prioritisation of science pursued according to the principles of logical positivism, initially meant that intellectual pursuit and the development of scientific knowledge became the main rationales underpinning higher education (Bourner, 2012). At the same time, new educational institutions – such as technical colleges and research institutes – were being created with a remit to engage in ‘applied’ education and research, to serve the requirements of industrial society. Coupled with this, a new trend emerged towards opening the traditionally elite system of HE to groups previously excluded. This democratisation of university education was underpinned by two phenomena. First, industrialisation brought with it the need for educated and well-trained ‘talent’, whereas broader social change, represented and accomplished by both feminist and working class movements meant that members of groups previously practically absent from university education were now in the position to execute their right to participate in it (Perkin, 2007). Widening access to HE was a particularly visible phenomenon in England, where – as a consequence of the introduction of state-funded scholarships – the proportion of working-class students increased from 1% to 29% between 1910 and 1930 (Kaelble, 1985). Further, as Perkin (2007) notes, women began to be allowed to participate in HE: first, through joining women’s colleges founded in the second half of the 19th century, and second, through being admitted to universities. Worth noting is that it was not until 1920 and 1948 that the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, respectively, formally accepted women as full university members.

With more students from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds entering HE, the training provided by universities gradually gained a more vocational and applied profile. In particular, after World War II, HE experienced intensive expansion across the world, with existing universities increasing in size and new universities being founded. In particular, in the global North, where the HE sector was already well established, the increase in the proportion of people undertaking university education in the second half of the 20th century was especially striking: in the UK, it grew between 1960 and 2000 from less than 10% to 60%; in Germany from 6% to 54%; and in the USA from 32% to 81% (Perkin, 2007). At the same time, the model of HE was ceasing to reflect Humboldtian ideals of ‘higher learning’ pursued independently of external influences and pressures from the ‘real political world’. On the contrary, the HE sector was evolving in response to the socioeconomic need for managers and employees who would be both knowledgeable and capable of applying specialised knowledge from a variety of disciplines, from traditional ones such as medicine and law, to more recently developing ones such as computer science and management.

In the UK, the beginning of a shift away from an emphasis on universities’ autonomy and towards accountability in relation to evaluating their societal role was marked by the 1946 changes to the University Grant Committee’s (UGC) – first established in 1911 – terms of reference:

To assist, in consultation with the universities and other bodies concerned, the preparation and execution of such plans for the development of the universities as may from time to time be required in order that they are fully adequate to national needs (quoted in Tapper and Salter, 1995: 62).

This re-articulation of the UGC’s role, for the first time made explicit the government’s expectation that in their work, British universities should be driven by the objective of meeting ‘national needs’. Whilst the UGC’s terms of reference did not define what specifically the term ‘national needs’ referred to, there was no mention of pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. The financial reliance of the universities on the state, operationalised in the acceptance of funds granted by the UGC, was beginning to give shape to a new understanding of the place of universities within society. Nevertheless, as Tapper and Salter (1995) point out, in the first decades after World War II, the links between government and the universities maintained to a large extent personal, rather than purely formal or bureaucratic character, due to the existence of an ‘élite consensus’ about the traditional purpose of a university. However, the economic crisis of the mid-1970s resulted in cuts to the amount of the recurrent UGC grant to universities, and an evolution of the relationship between the state and the universities in the direction of stricter state control. This control took the form of the introduction of research evaluation exercises (RAEs), the first of which took place in 1986, as a mechanism to determine the amount of funding allocated to universities (Bence and Oppenheim, 2005). In addition, the government began to influence ‘the academic map of higher education’ (Tapper and Salter, 1995: 65) through its policy of making resources available for the expansion of programmes which it wished to grow. These programmes were primarily of an applied nature, such as technology and engineering. As a result, universities were directed to grow in a way that government believed would support the country’s economic development.

Arguably, relative to the past, the 20thcentury brought a transformation from aristocratic to meritocratic society, at least in the so-called developed countries (McConnell et al., 1973). The transition of higher education from ‘elite’ to ‘mass’ was part of that transformation. Importantly, this more inclusive system, which presented social mobility opportunities for those from lower social classes as well as women, was now also given a different role by the state. Rather than benefitting from the state’s protection of their autonomy and an independent pursuit of research and education, universities became subjected to expectations to prove themselves to be socially and economically useful. These demands for accountability emerged given a large, inclusive HE sector required a much greater amount of funding than a smaller elite version. In those countries where universities are primarily funded via general taxation, they are a significant item within the country’s public education budget. On the other hand, where participation in HE is financed predominantly by the students and their families, accessing it constitutes a significant individual expense. Regardless of the universities’ financing model in a given country, the expansion of public HE resulted in greater involvement of the state – through a system of teaching- and research-related standards, audits, and reporting requirements – in the functioning of universities. At the same time, calls on universities to demonstrate their ‘value for money’ and ‘relevance’ replaced the previously unquestioned status of universities as autonomously self-governed ‘ivory towers’. It is within this context of the democratisation and growth of higher education, coupled with a changing place of universities in society, that universi...