Industry not harvest: Principles to minimise collateral damage in impact assessment at scale

The recent institutional submissions and conclusion of the first phase of the REF, coupled with the announcement of a wide-ranging review of research assessment in the UK, has provided space for renewed thinking on the state of research assessment. In this post, Julie Bayley, Kieran Fenby-Hulse, Chris Hewson and Anne Jolly, present reflections on the wider systemic effects of research and impact assessment within higher education institutions during the most recent round of the REF and discuss how principles derived from these observations might inform an approach to research assessment that is more inclusive, consistent and reduces unintended consequences. 1. We must recognise that impact assessment is an industry, not a harvesting of naturally occurring effects, and that this has resourcing implications which are felt unevenly across the sector 2. A clearer understanding is required of the disenfranchising effects felt by those in the broader research ecosystem, particularly individuals not portrayed as impact leaders within case study narratives 3. The sector must develop a clearer understanding of the risks inherent in instrumentalising and commodifying stakeholder relationships, and how this sits in contradiction to other parts of the research ecosystem (e.g., KEF)