There are two related debates occurring now on the impact of humanities and social science research: one on how to measure the research’s impact in the forthcoming Research Excellence Exercise consultation, and one on the broader question of how the humanities and social sciences might justify themselves given the push towards using economic value as the measure of effectiveness.
The BSA has always been keen to ensure that sociological research in the UK compares well with that carried out internationally – it is participating at the heart of the international benchmarking exercise conducted by the ESRC (see p. 16 of your upcoming members' newsletter, Network) – and that the productivity of publicly-funded sociological researchers is recognised.
One way of thinking about impact within humanities and social sciences is through the social and cultural relevance of our research. This might be measured in the following ways: engagement with civil society; contributions to what the AHRC calls civic capital; the promotion of teaching and learning; and contributions to policy and policy consultations.
At a meeting organised by the British Academy and attended by heads of humanities and social sciences learned societies, the Academy’s President, Baroness O’Neill, warned that we could not ignore the importance of economic impact, in the light of impending budget cuts and changes in government. Most humanities and social sciences subjects do not have links with industry and the market, and knowledge transfer in our areas tends not to be reflected in spin-off companies and the like. So work on the economic benefits of housing research, inter-cultural relations, ageing and population demographics, sport, heritage and so on will have to be stressed, once we get beyond our resistance to crude notions of utility.
This means that the BSA needs to develop a new narrative about impact that acknowledges the economic benefits and which also broadens the debate. This ‘impact narrative’ might make reference to sociology’s engagement with the big issues of future industrial, scientific and economic change – sustainability, labour migration, climate change, peace processes, the link between demographic shifts and welfare demands and the like, as well as our ongoing interest in the cultural and relational dynamics of social life. If the traditional values by which we judged the purpose of humanities and social sciences research have been replaced by economic utility, then our new narrative should not ignore this but should stress that economic, industrial and scientific change in the future will be mediated by sociology’s capacity to enable society to make sense of it. This means articulating that the social and cultural relevance of our research on quality of life issues, climate change or inter-cultural understandings, for example, has economic utility in addition to its other benefits.
We can develop such a narrative – the issue is what we do with it. Three questions seem important: with whom do we speak, to whom do we speak, and how do we say it?
The BSA cannot speak alone. The Research Councils, the British Academy, the Academy of Social Sciences and Universities UK are some of the bodies that are beginning to develop a narrative about impact to which the BSA must contribute. Our comfort zone needs to be stretched further, however. Baroness O’Neill remarked that humanities and social sciences learned societies would find it useful to develop alliances with natural and medical scientists, who also complain at crude notions of economic benefit. The BSA might need to reconsider its natural allies and find ways of engaging with strangers. Sociology needs, for example, to link with environmental sciences to discuss climate change, with medical sciences to debate future welfare demands and with economics when thinking about sustainability.
Those who we should speak to include politicians of all the leading parties, government ministers, and their shadows, political advisors, senior civil servants, and so on. Our narrative needs to be heard at the centre of power.
The BSA needs to engage in building relationships for its narrative to be heard at the top level. This means using hospitality events and lectures at the London office as means of social networking. It means we must identify ambassadors with connections at this level who can champion the discipline and put forward our narrative. The Academy of Social Sciences is a good body for us to use and the British Academy would benefit from co-ordinating campaigns and strategy with it. The BSA might develop an Academicians Group who can take this agenda forward within the Academy of Social Sciences.
Defining impact and its measures seems challenging, and lying behind this are broader questions about the visibility of sociological research. Who are the ‘publics’ that we wish to engage with, what are the forums to use, and who are the right ambassadors for the different forums?
Email your thoughts to me now.
John Brewer
University of Aberdeen
[A version of this article also appears in the Summer 09 issue of Network, the BSA’s newsletter for its members.]
Back to BSA President discusses IMPACT homepage.
