Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin - RMZ

The talk will offer a comparative review of policy-making in the area of research impact evaluation in UK (REF), Poland (EJDD) and Norway (Humeval and Sameval). Poland and Norway have used an ex-post, expert-review system modeled on the British REF. There are several analogies between the studied impact evaluation systems, including similar definitions of impact, the use of case studies as the basis for evaluation, the structuring of the impact template and English as the language of evaluation. There are also several differences: the mode of introduction of the exercise (gradual vs. shift), whether the exercise is tied to funding, and the level of transparency of the policy-making and evaluation process. The text will present an overview of the three approaches on impact evaluation and attempt to answer the following question: 1) How does the articulation of research impact change depending on the goals of the exercise and the broader academic and social context into which the exercise is introduced; 2) Consequently, how do the effects of the exercise differ from one national context to another?

After longer comparative part of the talk (based on an article submitted for review to Research Evaluation), I will attempt an interpretation of the ongoing process of policy-borrowing in the area of impact evaluation in terms of centre-periphery dynamics (as described by Immanuel Wallerstein) and/or Antonio Gramsci's theory of hegemony. The goal of the talk will be to test out theoretical theoretical perspectives on the data collected. I welcome any remarks and recommendations from the audience.

Zoom-Link:
https://hu-berlin.zoom-x.de/j/66137712462?pwd=bTF4VG9Ca1BxMkFqOE9xTFZxYldWQT09
Meeting-ID: 661 3771 2462
Passwort: 333635