Acceso usuarios
Exeter District, Reino Unido
This article explores some effects of the “impact agenda” on early academic careers and knowledge production. The impact agenda is the incentivisation of socio‐economic impact in university‐based research through research funding and evaluation mechanisms, producing, it has been theorised, new modalities of scholarly distinction (Watermeyer & Chubb, 2019). The latter risk aligning with traditionally individualistic forms of academic performativity (Chubb & Derrick, 2020), thus perpetuating existing inequality regimes (Davies et al., 2020) through posing additional obstacles to success for traditionally marginalised groups in academic hierarchies. Within the UK context, where the impact agenda is strongly institutionalised, we examine the delivery of highly rated impact by early career researchers and its effect on their work and careers. Specifically, we interrogate the potential for the (e)valuation of impact to democratise knowledge production and access to, and progression in, academic careers. Our article reports on the documentary discourse analysis of the highest‐rated “impact case studies” in the UK’s recent research evaluation exercise and interviews with some of their early career researcher (co)authors. The findings of this exploratory work suggest that while the impact agenda has started to incentivise and reward knowledge co‐production and a broader set of research skills, motivations, and pathways, there is a risk that this tendency co‐exists with, rather than challenges, established forms of “scholarly distinction” embodied in publishing productivity and funding capture, potentially leading to skill and talent loss.
