Managing and Incentivising Research Impact: Evidence from Australia

IF 1.7 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Higher Education Policy Pub Date : 2024-03-26 DOI:10.1057/s41307-024-00351-6
Joshua Newman
{"title":"Managing and Incentivising Research Impact: Evidence from Australia","authors":"Joshua Newman","doi":"10.1057/s41307-024-00351-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Views on the impact of academic research are divided, with some voices advocating for more impact and others calling attention to pathologies of the “impact agenda”. One point of interest to most observers is the degree of alignment between academics, who do the research, and university leaders, who control rules and resources relating to research. Using a survey of academics and interviews with university leaders at a large, representative, research-focused university in Australia, this article contributes to the scholarship on research impact by investigating and analysing perceptions of what impact is and how it can be achieved. The study finds that in this case, there was significant disagreement between academics and university leaders on the meaning of impact and how it should be incentivised. These disagreements present a serious obstacle for universities advancing impact strategies and create vulnerabilities for conflict between university management and academic staff as envisioned by critics of the impact agenda.</p>","PeriodicalId":47327,"journal":{"name":"Higher Education Policy","volume":"153 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Higher Education Policy","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-024-00351-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Views on the impact of academic research are divided, with some voices advocating for more impact and others calling attention to pathologies of the “impact agenda”. One point of interest to most observers is the degree of alignment between academics, who do the research, and university leaders, who control rules and resources relating to research. Using a survey of academics and interviews with university leaders at a large, representative, research-focused university in Australia, this article contributes to the scholarship on research impact by investigating and analysing perceptions of what impact is and how it can be achieved. The study finds that in this case, there was significant disagreement between academics and university leaders on the meaning of impact and how it should be incentivised. These disagreements present a serious obstacle for universities advancing impact strategies and create vulnerabilities for conflict between university management and academic staff as envisioned by critics of the impact agenda.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
管理和激励研究影响:来自澳大利亚的证据
关于学术研究的影响,人们的看法不一,有些人主张扩大影响,有些人则呼吁关注 "影响议程 "的病态。大多数观察家感兴趣的一点是,从事研究的学者与控制研究规则和资源的大学领导之间的一致程度。本文通过对澳大利亚一所大型、有代表性、以研究为重点的大学的学者进行调查,并对大学领导进行访谈,调查和分析了人们对什么是影响力以及如何实现影响力的看法,为研究影响力的学术研究做出了贡献。研究发现,在这种情况下,学术界和大学领导之间在影响力的含义以及如何激励影响力方面存在重大分歧。这些分歧严重阻碍了大学推进影响力战略,并造成了影响力议程批评者所设想的大学管理层与学术人员之间冲突的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Higher Education Policy
Higher Education Policy EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Higher Education Policy is an international peer-reviewed and SSCI-indexed academic journal focusing on higher education policy in a broad sense. The journal considers submissions that discuss national and supra-national higher education policies and/or analyse their impacts on higher education institutions or the academic community: leadership, faculty, staff and students, but also considers papers that deal with governance and policy issues at the level of higher education institutions. Critical analyses, empirical investigations (either qualitative or quantitative), and theoretical-conceptual contributions are equally welcome, but for all submissions the requirement is that papers be embedded in the relevant academic literature and contribute to furthering our understanding of policy. The journal has a preference for papers that are written from a disciplinary or interdisciplinary perspective. In the past, contributors have relied on perspectives from public administration, political science, sociology, history, economics and law, but also from philosophy, psychology and anthropology. Articles devoted to systems of higher education that are less well-known or less often analysed are particularly welcome. Given the international scope of the journal, articles should be written for and be understood by an international audience, consisting of researchers in higher education, disciplinary researchers, and policy-makers, administrators, managers and practitioners in higher education. Contributions should not normally exceed 7,000 words (excluding references). Peer reviewAll submissions to the journal will undergo rigorous peer review (anonymous referees) after an initial editorial screening on quality and fit with the journal''s aims.Special issues The journal welcomes proposals for special issues. The journal archive contains several examples of special issues. Such proposals, to be sent to the editor, should set out the theme of the special issue and include the names of the (proposed) contributors and summaries of the envisaged contributions. Forum section Occasionally, the journal publishes contributions – in its Forum section – based on personal viewpoints and/or experiences with the intent to stimulate discussion and reflection, or to challenge established thinking in the field of higher education.
期刊最新文献
The Third Space in Higher Education: A Scoping Review A Question of (Academic) Honour? Motivations for Member Participation in Advisory Boards in the German Science System Women’s Leadership Dilemma: Why Ethiopian Women in Academia Prefer to Stay away from Decision-Making? Beyond the Bench: The Professional Identity of Research Management and Administration The ‘Problem’ of University-Industry Linkages: Insights from Australia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1