I just had a petition drop into my inbox, asking me to sign to protest against the criteria for measuring how academic research is being awarded funds.
To cut a long story short, one of the key frameworks that has been introduced for measuring the success of a proposal is whether or not it has an ‘impact’ on ‘users’ of that research. These may not neccessarily be other academics. While the language of ‘users’ may invoke the very worst the neoliberal academy in the UK has to offer, I think its actually quite, er, useful, to think about widening the sphere of people who can actively participate in the findings of your research.
When I was constructing a funding proposal for the ESRC this year, I actually found the notion of ‘impact’ to be a very sensible way of thinking about the usefulness of my research proposal. I had little difficulty in writing about the effect my proposed research would have on different parts of society, from secondary education to museums, archives and libraries, to more commercial sites like TV and radio. In fact, the main impetus behind this research proposal is to have an impact on varied users who will most probably not be academics. The promise to write academic journal articles was nothing but a self-indulgent whim to satisfy my intellectualism (and of course, the conditions of the grant). For me it’s all about the impact baby! Otherwise, what’s the point?
The petition’s manifesto is a little more defensive:
‘Academic excellence is the best predictor of impact in the longer term, and it is on academic excellence alone that research should be judged. ‘Users’ who are not academic experts are not fit to judge the academic excellence of research any more than employers are fit to mark student essays’.
I find this to be such a weak argument, and if listened to by the government, or whoever it is that decides what the criteria for judging research proposals is, will only re-affirm the insularity of academic research which has gone on for too long.
At least with a framework that considers impact it forces people to think how their research can be accountable to a wider audience. Academics have to offer creative strategies where knowledge produced through research can become accessible to many different people (blogs, websites, public seminars, theatre and art collaborations, and more). Surely this is a good thing, and much needed too.
I dream of a culture where there is intellectual accountability. Where there is a movement of knowledge in action between people who adjust how they receive the messages, re-package information according to their needs and understanding. Where ideas can translate into different contexts, where people don’t have to pay, lie or sneak in to sit and read in a University library.
Impact is not about dumming down. It’s about communicating to people. Knowledge is power. Distribute it.