In this discussion of democracy's conceptual pluralism(s), Frederic Schaffer holds a guiding lamp to show what researchers should take into consideration in the study of “the democracies” and their “rough equivalents” as can be found across language, culture, time, and space. This act generates a focus on practical tactics in research and knowledge dissemination. Is it, for example, best to establish an international committee of democracy's epistemic experts to gather, code, and organize the meanings of democracy and their rough equivalents as can be found in the world? And, with such a committee or something altogether different, how can we relate this information to pro-democracy institutions and activists when so many appear to be interested only in liberal conceptions of democracy? The discussion ends with considerations of an open range of research and activism in the fields of democratic theory, comparative politics, and democratization.

The Brexit referendum was an unprecedented event in the context of British politics, but it was also a defining moment for the discipline of political science. Never before had political scientists in the UK faced such demand for public engagement against the backdrop of a highly polarised electoral campaign. This article assesses how scholars met this challenge by analysing online contributions to established academic websites in the 6 months prior to the vote. It highlights that high-profile political campaigns pose a distinct dilemma for political scientists: on the one hand, the reach of their contributions is far greater when they take a positional stance on an issue, yet the value of political science rests on its credibility, which can come under threat if the public perceives the discipline, and academics more generally, to represent partisan viewpoints.

Social relevance has become a key element to assess the social legitimacy of an academic discipline. This contrasts with a widespread sentiment among political scientists about the existence of a relevance gap. The context of multiple crises Europe has experienced since the late 2000s has provided political scientists with a multitude of opportunities to demonstrate the social relevance of their work and the usefulness of the discipline. This introductory article to the special issue aims to offer an explorative framework and a preliminary discussion of empirical examples to assess the phenomenon of political scientists’ relevance in the public sphere during recent turbulent times. The framework (which emphasises three basic dimensions of social relevance – partisanship, visibility, and impact) is used to interpret the main results of the five case studies included in the special issue. Results show that contextual factors (salience of the issue, political and media contexts) influence political scientists’ engagement in the public sphere, the role they adopt and their visibility. The article ends emphasising the importance of collective action within the discipline as an instrument to enhance its social relevance.

Philanthropic foundations in the USA have long wrestled with how to demonstrate they contribute to the public good in a democratic society given the outsized voice their wealth provides. Evaluating the work of their grantees is one way that foundations can demonstrate what that contribution is; the data drawn from evaluation are used to give accounts about the value of their work. Recently, foundations have confronted the evidence-based policy movement which promotes randomized controlled trials as an evaluation tool that can help reveal “what works” in the realm of social services. This provides a path for foundations to more firmly establish that they are benefiting society by providing impact but also presents risks around entrenching inequities and diminishing the voice of community partners. Drawing on interviews from 2019 with program officers from large U.S. foundations that fund social services evaluation, we find that, perhaps surprisingly, the majority of these foundations have serious concerns about RCT-based evaluation, are not giving impact-based accounts of their contributions, and instead rely on equity-based accounts, presenting grantees as partners and recognizing pluralist forms of knowledge. This approach offers a different, less top-down, solution to ongoing demands that foundations demonstrate their value in a democracy.

Academics are often accused of being secluded in their “ivory towers”, focused on research and teaching but uninterested in, or unable to engage with, the public debate. If this is actually the case, under what conditions and at what particular moment is this likely to change? Following on three relevant dimensions—the visibility of political scientists, their partisanship and their impact in the public sphere—and combining press analysis with original survey data, this article has two main aims: first, to assess Italian political scientists’ (IPSs) social relevance in a period of huge political and institutional conflict such as the constitutional referendum held in December 2016; second, to explore the potential factors leading IPSs to be more or less present in the public debate. For the former, we focus on the public visibility of IPSs during the referendum campaign, as well as on the content of their public interventions, both concerning their neutral/partisan stance and their attitudes towards the constitutional reform. For the latter, we empirically test a few personal and institutional factors that are likely to influence individuals’ participation in the referendum debate.

Social enterprise has become a key phenomenon in providing public services in many developed countries. The debate on the evaluation of the socio-economic impact generated by this kind of organization has gone hand in hand with the growth of social entrepreneurship. This study provides an exploratory analysis of the emerging practice of measuring the socio-economic impact of social enterprises using the theoretic construct called “Blended Value Accounting” (BVA). Among the models and tools proposed by BVA, we examine in particular the Social Return on Investment (SROI)—an instrument of causal contribution analysis—conducting a literature review on its application to the evaluation of socio-economic impact of social enterprises and on its implications for BVA. Finally, we reach a conclusion as to the role that these tools of mixed accounting and assessment might play—particularly the one examined—with respect to the positivist, critical, and interpretative theories of accounting, thus identifying the areas for further research.

This paper presents a review and synthesis of resources available to social entrepreneurs considering social franchising as an option for scale. We identified 20 publications produced by organizations supporting social franchising and four peer-reviewed journal manuscripts. Commonalities and differences between social and commercial franchising are discussed, with a focus on capacities and considerations needed to undertake social franchising. Based on our synthesis, we propose a seven-stage approach to guide social entrepreneurs in considering this option and to inform future research on social franchising as one potential mechanism for scaling impact.

Political science has for some time been afflicted with an existential and empirical angst concerning impact and relevance. This is by no means a new or unique disciplinary pathology, but it is one that has intensified in recent years. The reasons for this intensification have been explored in a burgeoning literature on ‘the tyranny of impact’. The central argument of this article is that a focus on the ‘relevance gap’ within political science, and vis-à-vis the social sciences more generally, risks failing to comprehend the emergence of a far broader and multifaceted ‘expectations gap’. The core argument and contribution of this article is that the future of political science will depend on the politics and management of the ‘expectations gap’ that has emerged. Put slightly differently, the study of politics needs to have a sharper grasp of the politics of its own discipline and the importance of framing, positioning, connecting vis-à-vis the broader social context.

Invasive non-native species proceed through the Invasion Process upon introduction to a new location, with stages comprising establishment, growth, spread, and invasive impact. High fecundity, driven by fast growth, short lifespan, and a long reproduction period, can lead to high population densities, facilitating stage progression. The Asian date mussel (Arcuatula senhousia) is a marine intertidal–subtidal species, recently established in the UK. Given its potential to impact ecosystem services in Northern Europe, understanding the Invasion Process stage it has reached is imperative for assessing potential invasiveness and informing management. Therefore, population parameters of subtidal A. senhousia in the UK were evaluated from April 2021 to March 2022 to assess invasion stage. Specimens were collected (n = 1,029) via dredging and processed for condition index, gonadosomatic index, gonad index, length-frequency distribution, and electronic length-frequency analyses. While densities were low (<1 individuals per m2), maximum lifespan was high (23 months) and growth rate was high (1.8 mm per month), relative to other populations within the species’ global range. Results confirmed June to October spawning as previously reported in the UK and France but also evidenced secondary spawning (in November) for the first time in Northern Europe. Successful recruitment from primary and secondary spawning in 2020 was also apparent. Findings indicate A. senhousia has reached the Growth stage, and that further spread within the UK and Northern Europe is likely. Climate change will likely increase larval survivorship and individual and population fecundity, facilitating progression to invasive impact, potentially within the next decade.