The second dimension of impact covered in this book is the characteristics of the research and researchers. Therefore, the aim of this chapter is to illuminate the nature of the underlying research and researchers in the ICS from three of the REF sub-panels included in this analysis, namely Sociology, Politics and International Relations and Social Policy and Social Work. Based on the work by Dunlop (2018), the first part of the chapter compares the nature of underlying research, its funding and publication outlets. In the second part, issues around the use of research in policymaking raised in Chapter two, such as technical versus normative contributions, and the timing and trustworthiness of research will be discussed.

As outlined in the previous chapter, the analysis is based on the submissions with the highest proportions of four-star ICS for Sociology, Social Policy and Politics and International Relations. This includes 37 from Social Policy and Social Work, 41 submissions from Politics and International Relations, and 30 submissions from Sociology. I will use examples from the ICS throughout this chapter to illustrate key points.

The underlying research

Even though this book is about impact, the underlying research is the basis of and therefore at the heart of the ICS. Starting with the methodology, where available, the categories of qualitative methods, quantitative methods, mixed methods and evaluations and conceptual work were sufficient to capture the range of methodologies applied (see Table 4.1). No ICS used experiments or were based purely on theoretical work, and so these categories have been dropped.

Comparing the underlying methodologies displayed different patterns and, perhaps, emphasis across the three sub-disciplines In the Politics and International Relations sub-panel submissions, conceptual work makes up the largest number of case studies. For Sociology this place is reserved for quantitative studies, while the ICS submitted to the Social Policy and Social Work sub-panel are spread almost evenly across the different methods. However, the relatively high proportion of quantitative submissions – varying from a third for Social Policy and Social Work and Politics and International Relations to almost half for Sociology – warrants further reflections. These proportions are unlikely to be a reflection of the disciplinary orientation, given the relative shortage of quantitative skills within the UK social sciences mentioned in Chapter two (British Academy, 2008), as much as the perceived robustness and usability of quantitative research in the context of EBPM (Parkhurst, 2017).