The introduction of impact into the 2014 Research Excellence Framework as an additional measure of academic work and worth was an attempt to judge universities on a more ‘balanced scorecard’ (Bence and Oppenheim, 2005: 151–152). The deliberately broad definition of impact for the REF2014 and demonstration via a qualitative case study with self-defined criteria of success both helped its applicability across disciplines and allowed researchers to include different types of impact in their ICS. And yet, the successful narratives found in many ICS stand in contrast to the more pessimistic assessment of the EBPM literature as well as the long view provided by the interviews on the contribution that academic research makes to policy.

The contribution of this book is threefold: unlike most other studies of the REF2014 ICS, this book includes case studies from three different sub-panels, which in themselves capture several disciplines, and therefore allows for a comparison of how impact and academic identify are defined and presented. Therefore, it allows for an in-depth comparison across three key social sciences disciplines (see Chapter four). Second, the ICS are placed in an analytical framework that identifies different types of impact and impact pathways (see Chapter five) and places them in the context of academic identities and different policy models (Chapter two). Finally, it provides a comparison across time based on interviews with Social Policy professors who are looking back over 40 years as well as analysing the relationship between research and policymaking (Chapter six). This long view allows the achievements as well as the serendipitous and superficial nature of impact to be placed into the context of different governments and stages of welfare state development.

The main findings emerging from the comparison of the ICS

The sample in this book contained between 30 and 40 case studies from the Sociology, Politics and International Relations and Social Policy and Social Work sub-panels. The selection of the case studies was based on the overall ranking of the ICS for the submitting units as a way of obtaining a selection of what is seen as excellent impact. When looking across three of the main social science disciplines a number of broader common trends become evident:

The first, and rather striking, point is the duration, intensity and variety of the engagement of academics with policy actors across many of the case studies.