Ozlem, A., and Mustafa, O. (2025) Noninclusive Impact: Rethinking Research Impact Through an Equity Lens and Equality Interventions. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5123937
Abstract
Research impact has emerged as a cornerstone of academic performance assessment in the UK, epitomised by the Research Excellence Framework (REF). Through an analysis of the Business and Management impact case submissions to the REF, this paper explores the intricate interplay between institutional rankings, Athena Swan awards, and social inequalities in shaping research impact. Leveraging Bourdieu’s theoretical universe, including concepts of field, habitus, and various forms of capital, the study reveals how gendered, racial, and class-based hierarchies underpin and perpetuate disparities in the production and recognition of impact. The findings underscore the critical role of structural interventions, such as Athena Swan initiatives, in moderating these inequalities while highlighting their limitations in bridging the gap between planning and execution. By linking these findings to broader science and innovation policy debates, we propose a multi level framework for fostering inclusive and equitable research impact. Our recommendations provide actionable insights for policymakers and higher education institutions seeking to democratize research impact assessment and improve equity in academic careers.
- Caveat off the top: this is a non-peer reviewed pre-print. It doesn’t mean this is better or worse than peer reviewed articles. It means you need to be a critical consumer of the material.
This is an interesting article because it interrogates the relationship between equity and impact. It isn’t knowledge mobilization per se but knowledge mobilization enables research impact so a credible link can be made. The article looked at impact case study author identities of gender and race and the submission of impact case studies in the UK 2021 Research Impact Framework.
- Next caveat: the authors looked at academic profiles of impact case study authors and determined which were men/women and which were white/non-white. The authors admit this is imprecise. But I agree with the authors that this is an ok basis on which to proceed. It isn’t perfect but it starts to address the question.
What is the question? Through quantitative analysis of impact case studies and demographic data, we explore whether and how Athena Swan Award rankings moderate the relationship between institutional prestige and research impact outcomes.
Now non-UK audiences are asking not only what is REF but what is Athena Swan? It is a charter recognizing academic institutions that are making progress towards gender equity in research. It rewards a bronze ranking to institutions beginning to plan and gold to institutions who can demonstrate planning was implemented and made a difference. It is only gender and – I think – it is only men/women, nothing about trans researchers.
The study asks if institutions awarded Athena Swan recognition submit more impact case studies and have greater diversity in impact case study authors.
- Final Caveat (which is where peer review would help): the number of impact case studies submitted is a function of a REF formula so asking about Athena Swan recognition and number of case studies submitted doesn’t feel like you make a conclusion since institutions submit what they are told to submit by REF rules.
But for the next two questions about gender and race of the case study authors there is greater diversity of both in institutions that have been awarded Athena Swan Gold but not Bronze or Silver. The assumption here is that planning for diversity doesn’t result in diversity but actually implementing those plans does.
With the caveats above the data suggest that institutions who receive Athena Gold recognition have greater diversity of case study authors. The authors of the article conclude that efforts to increase equity, diversity and inclusion can “democratize research impact assessment and improve equity in academic careers.”
Questions for brokers:
- The references the authors use cite gender inequity in impact assessment. Why is there no literature cited on racial inequity?
- There are always more women than men in the knowledge mobilization webinars, courses, meetings I attend but we are mostly professional (ie support) staff, not academic researchers. Is this another example of gender bias and exclusion in academic careers?
- What might an EDI plan for knowledge mobilization look like and how might it help create more inclusive knowledge mobilization and thus more inclusive research impact?
Research Impact Canada is producing this journal club series to make evidence on KMb more accessible to knowledge brokers and to create online discussion about research on knowledge mobilization. It is designed for knowledge brokers and other people interested in knowledge mobilization. Read this open access article. Then come back to this post and join the journal club by posting your comments on our LinkedIn.