Academic identity at the intersection of global scientific communities and national science policies: societal impact in the UK and Netherlands

ABSTRACT

This article investigates attitudes to societal impact of research as an entry point into understanding academic identities. Conceptually, we position academic identity at the intersection of global scientific fields and national science policies. We argue that the degree of alignment or misalignment between the two can create coherent academic identities, or on the contrary, tensions in academics’ identity. Empirically, we use the disciplines of philosophy and anthropology as proxies for scientific fields in the social sciences and humanities (SSH). The study is based on sixteen semi-structured interviews with mid-career philosophers and anthropologists in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, and an analysis of how societal impact is positioned in the two national evaluation systems. We conclude that ‘coercive’ national impact policies (like the one in the UK) are less likely to be aligned with global disciplinary norms in the SSH and therefore create tensions in academic identity; these can undermine academics’ agency and be counterproductive in terms of reaching policy objectives. By contrast, ‘enabling’ national impact policies (like the one in the Netherlands) are conducive to more coherent academic identities that are better aligned with disciplinary notions of societal impact. By discussing academic identities in a comparative context, the study highlights the struggles of reconciling disciplinary and national notions of societal impact. To realise the potential societal impact of academic research, we recommend that impact is integrated into a wider ecosystem of interactions where policy-driven notions are aligned with disciplinary norms and values.

KEYWORDS:

• Academic identity
• societal impact
• scientific communities
• science policy
• social sciences and humanities

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 See Appendix 1 for interview protocol. Please note that the protocol does not explicitly ask questions related to national science policies. To understand the differences at this level, we systematically compared the responses to the questions posed in sections one and two between the group of respondents from the UK and the respondents from the Netherlands.

2 For a more detailed categorisation, see Appendix 2.

3 This observation nuances the Dutch popular debate about impact in the early 2010s (cf. De Jong 2015).

Additional information

Funding

Financial support was received from the Alliance Manchester Business School Lord Alliance Strategic Research Investment Fund (LA-SRIF-AA15310) and a Rubicon Grant of the Dutch Research Council (grant number 446-16-013).