The criticism of impact as an element in the 2014REF focused on the ability to capture and assess the impact of academic work. The EBPM literature draws out the numerous barriers to the use of research in policymaking and therefore paints a bleak picture overall. Five years after the REF2014 a number of studies have analysed the process of the impact assessment as well as the ICS themselves, and yet confusion over what counts as impact in the REF context remains. This chapter will discuss the findings of existing research before introducing the research design of this study. This study aims to illuminate the nature of the underlying research as well as the nature and reach of the impact. The design is based on two comparisons of impact: across disciplines and over time, using a selection of ICS from the REF2014 submitted to the Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work and the Politics and International Relations sub-panels together with interviews with UK Social Policy professors looking back at their influence and impact over their careers.

Researching REF impact

The studies analysing impact as part of the REF2014 broadly fall into three categories. The first set of studies have focused on the process of assessing and evaluating impact (Watermeyer and Hedgecoe, 2016; Derrick, 2018; Watermeyer and Chubbs, 2018). The second analyses the content of the ICS usually by academic discipline or subject (to be discussed later). The third group grapples with how to evaluate the scale of the impact claimed in the ICS (Smith, 2013; Morton 2015a; 2015b; Smith and Stewart, 2016). I will return to these arguments in Chapter five where I am developing and applying my own typology of impact.

Starting with the first group, a number of ethnographic studies have explored the assessment process by the REF (sub-)panels through observing pilot exercises run by universities (Watermeyer and Hedgecoe, 2016) and by interviewing members of the REF (sub-)panels before and after the REF meetings (Derrick, 2018; Watermeyer and Chubb, 2018). The definition of impact provided by HEFCE was left deliberately broad, so that it could fit the multitude of disciplines and activities submitted as part of the new format (see Chapter two).