Dunlop, C.A. (2018) ‘The Political Economy of Politics and International Studies Impact: REF2014 Case Analysis’, British Politics, 13, 3: 270-294. (original) (raw)
Debates about impact and relevance have long been a feature of British politics and international studies. Thanks to the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF), we now have large-scale and comparable empirical evidence to animate and shape these discussions. Here, we present the first systematic analysis of the case studies. Using frequency data, we report the political economy of political science and international studies impact across four broad themes: who has what impact and when; impact’s beneficiaries; impact’s evidence base; and, generating and validating impact. Analytically, we comment on the findings using insights from disciplinary histories and knowledge utilisation literatures. We conclude by discussing the ramifications of our case analysis for the discipline.
Related papers
European Political Science, 2021
Over the last 20 years, the notion of relevance vis-à-vis political science became not only a subject of academic debates but also a domain of practice, largely due to the developments in the research funding, increasingly referred to as the 'impact agenda'. In this article, we explore how the growing focus on socioeconomic impact as the assessment criterion of research funding shapes the discipline of political science itself-its knowledge production, dissemination and the emergent forms of accountability of political scientists. The article presents the results of a major international study that has examined the emergence of 'impact agendas' across 33 countries. We report on the changing idea of relevance of political science through the lens of its strategic ambiguity and historical evolution. We then explore these broader trends through an in-depth analysis of the UK as an 'extreme case' and a blueprint for funding system reforms. These developments, we argue, are not a mere funding policy innovation but rather a paradigm-level change, reshaping the position of political science in society as well as the types of scholarship that are possible and incentivised.
Review of International Studies, 2022
This article asks whether there is a discrepancy between the field of International Political Economy (IPE) as we know it from recent debates about its role, distinctiveness, and contribution compared to the experience of its practitioners on the ground? Intellectually IPE is needed more than ever to engage real world events but faces constraining institutional imperatives. We have two interrelated objectives related to this: (1) to assess the extent to which the patterns in recent interventions are replicated when you ask those who self-identify as IPE scholars in the UK (2) to appraise survey data on the reproduction of a particular community of practice within the field as it evolves intellectually and institutionally. Rather than imposing our interpretation of IPE through publications, citation practices, conference attendance, or textbook content we offer two distinct contributions. First, to report new empirical data on IPE as a ‘field of inquiry’ in UK universities; and, seco...
How relevant is UK political science? A riposte to Matthew Flinders and Peter Riddell
2012
Criticisms of academics, particularly of political scientists, have dominated recent academic and media debates amid claims that the professionalization of the discipline has led to the subject becoming detached from public life. However, Peter John challenges the notion of a long-lost golden era and argues that in fact engagement is improving and has benefited from new digital tools.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Related papers
British Political Studies (2018)
Wiśniewski J. (ed.), Political Science, Politische Wissenschaft, and Politologija in Comparative Perspective, Poznań - Moscow, 2018