Popular in Political Science

American Politics

Keeping the Republic

Boston College Marc Landy

Canadian Politics

Parties and Elections: An End to Canadian Exceptionalism?

St. Francis Xavier University James Bickerton

Asian Politics

The Politics of Knowledge in Development

University of Delhi Madhulika Banerjee

American Politics

Fifty years of declining confidence and increasing polarization in trust

University of California Berkeley Henry Brady

American Politics

The Opening Dilemma

Cornell University Richard Bensel

Political Economy

Wait and See?

University of Liverpool Mariaelisa Epifanio

Political Science

The Colonialist Roots of Democratic Decay

University of California Los Angeles Richard D. Anderson, Jr

Entrepreneurial thinking: the politics and practice of policy impact

View more insights in Social Sciences - Political Science - British Politics

View more figures from University of Sheffield

View the page of Matthew Flinders

Matthew Flinders discusses the issues of ‘the politics of policy impact’ that have direct implications for how academics, in general, and entrepreneurship researchers, in particular, face the emerging research, innovation and development ecosystem.

Image courtesy of interviewee. June 11, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video discusses the challenges and complexities surrounding entrepreneurship research, particularly the relationship between academic studies and policy-making. Steve Johnson, an academic specializing in entrepreneurial studies, argues that the impact of entrepreneurship research on society may be greater than measurable evidence suggests, yet this also opens up the possibility that the research could have had little to no impact. This video highlights the non-linear and messy relationship between academic research and policy, suggesting that this ambiguity can offer a shield against accountability.

The author raises concerns about how academics can engage with policymakers while maintaining independence and criticality, particularly in a climate where funding often requires collaboration with research users. There is a worry about the risk of compromising academic integrity in pursuit of grants, which could lead to diluting critical voices in research.

The changing socio-political landscape of higher education has intensified pressures on academics, leading to concerns about mental health and precarious employment. This video emphasizes the need for pluralism in research methods and acknowledges that while co-production with research users can be beneficial, it also brings challenges that need careful navigation.

Examples are provided through evaluations of initiatives like the ESRC policy fellows, where academics added value by asking critical questions and contributing to broader systemic improvements in government departments. The author argues for more reflection on the implications of co-production and promotes research leadership as a critical area for development, particularly regarding its impact on equality, diversity, inclusion, and mental health within academic settings. Overall, the text calls for a rethinking of how research is conducted and supported, focusing on maintaining academic independence amidst external pressures.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.095 --> 00:01.405
Steve Johnson is an academic

00:01.505 --> 00:03.965
who specializes in entrepreneurial studies,

00:04.715 --> 00:08.085
what entrepreneurship means, how entrepreneurs operate,

00:08.345 --> 00:10.845
and particularly how they can find evidence

00:10.845 --> 00:13.485
that they're impacting upon society more broadly.

00:13.945 --> 00:16.445
And his argument was actually, you know, one that's been

00:16.445 --> 00:19.445
around for some time, that assumptions research

00:19.445 --> 00:23.085
that then leads that can be clearly evidenced, like

00:23.085 --> 00:25.925
through audit based models is very difficult

00:26.155 --> 00:28.605
because the relationship between academic research

00:29.105 --> 00:32.565
and the policy world tends to be very non-linear,

00:32.595 --> 00:33.925
very fuzzy, very messy.

00:34.505 --> 00:37.205
So he was using this argument basically to say that

00:38.245 --> 00:41.165
entrepreneurship research may well have had a much bigger

00:41.465 --> 00:43.925
impact than it's been able to prove.

00:44.885 --> 00:47.845
I suppose the only flip side of that argument is

00:47.845 --> 00:49.325
that also entrepreneurship studies

00:49.325 --> 00:50.605
might have had no impact at all.

00:51.145 --> 00:53.285
And yet the idea that it's a very fuzzy relationship

00:53.365 --> 00:57.085
provides quite a nice intellectual shield to hide behind.

00:57.545 --> 01:00.045
But that's not one just faced by entrepreneurship studies.

01:00.155 --> 01:02.525
It's one faced by arts, humanities,

01:02.525 --> 01:03.805
social sciences more broadly.

01:04.275 --> 01:06.885
What I was interested in is, is what was,

01:07.435 --> 01:08.725
what was Johnson's real problem?

01:09.625 --> 01:12.205
Was it almost at what I would say,

01:12.485 --> 01:15.645
a meta level about the meta governance of higher education,

01:16.255 --> 01:18.445
about the commodification of knowledge

01:18.825 --> 01:21.885
and those deep ontological epistemological methodological

01:22.325 --> 01:24.645
challenges about impact valuation?

01:24.945 --> 01:27.005
Was it at a, a more baseline level

01:27.075 --> 01:29.965
that he just doesn't like the sort of whole,

01:30.865 --> 01:34.005
impact agenda and the, the, the emergence

01:34.005 --> 01:37.405
of ref impact case studies and things like that?

01:37.985 --> 01:41.685
Um, because it really depends upon, I think there's a,

01:41.685 --> 01:44.165
there are, there are questions at each and every level.

01:44.785 --> 01:47.525
Um, but for me the big question is this meta level about

01:47.525 --> 01:48.805
what is the role of an academic,

01:48.805 --> 01:50.085
what is the role of professor?

01:50.395 --> 01:53.165
What is the role of higher education vis-a-vis relationships

01:53.165 --> 01:55.325
with society more generally?

01:55.905 --> 01:57.605
And more importantly,

01:57.605 --> 01:59.045
and I suppose this is where the, the,

01:59.065 --> 02:00.205
the big level questions

02:00.205 --> 02:02.445
and the more specific policy level is

02:02.745 --> 02:04.325
how do academics engage

02:04.325 --> 02:07.645
with policy makers whilst retaining a high degree

02:07.645 --> 02:10.485
of independence and criticality?

02:11.165 --> 02:13.285
I mean, I suppose my, my main position on this,

02:13.285 --> 02:16.365
which I've written about more, more broadly, is that

02:16.605 --> 02:20.445
although I'm in favor of more integrated

02:20.965 --> 02:23.725
boundary spanning research methods, co-production,

02:23.875 --> 02:27.405
co-design, working closely with potential research users

02:28.425 --> 02:31.885
at the same time, we've got to be aware that

02:31.915 --> 02:33.885
that brings certain challenges

02:34.185 --> 02:37.445
and a small p politics of research.

02:38.065 --> 02:40.765
You know, let's, this is a time when academics are under

02:40.795 --> 02:43.985
huge pressure to bring in research funding.

02:44.655 --> 02:46.145
They're under huge pressure

02:46.165 --> 02:48.505
to increase their publications profile.

02:49.365 --> 02:50.705
And yet the vast majority

02:50.705 --> 02:54.345
of research grant opportunities now from funders demand some

02:54.345 --> 02:56.785
form of co-production with potential research users.

02:57.645 --> 03:00.725
So my concern is there is a potential there for

03:01.445 --> 03:03.885
a Faustian bargain, whereas the academics

03:04.665 --> 03:08.085
engage in research projects with research users.

03:08.545 --> 03:11.565
So that opens up the doors to significant research funding.

03:11.705 --> 03:14.085
But there may well be an unwritten quid pro quo.

03:14.705 --> 03:16.005
The deal for signing up

03:16.005 --> 03:17.845
and getting those research users on site

03:17.845 --> 03:21.405
and in your project is an understanding that you will temper

03:22.075 --> 03:24.405
your criticality, your independence.

03:25.285 --> 03:27.605
'cause otherwise, particularly in a political climate,

03:28.165 --> 03:30.965
external bodies won't want to come into the project.

03:31.425 --> 03:34.565
My my concern is about the, the politics of co-production

03:35.255 --> 03:38.325
risks about the contamination of research

03:39.145 --> 03:42.165
and the need for academics always to retain a sense of,

03:42.785 --> 03:45.725
or awareness of criticality and independence.

03:45.925 --> 03:49.355
'cause once you lose that, it's very hard to, to regain it.

03:49.475 --> 03:52.515
I think what's really interesting is first of all, you know,

03:53.025 --> 03:55.395
I've been in higher education 25 years

03:55.815 --> 03:57.075
and in that time,

03:57.295 --> 03:59.955
the whole sociopolitical context within which higher

03:59.955 --> 04:02.235
education works has changed dramatically.

04:03.055 --> 04:07.315
Far more politicized, a much sugar figure shift towards,

04:07.975 --> 04:11.515
solution orientated, government defined

04:12.035 --> 04:13.795
research funding opportunities.

04:14.575 --> 04:19.155
And within academia itself a huge shift in pressure

04:19.345 --> 04:23.555
towards excellence, excellence in teaching, in research,

04:23.575 --> 04:25.475
in publications, in administration,

04:26.255 --> 04:28.115
in delivering societal impact.

04:28.615 --> 04:31.295
And at the same time the growth

04:31.415 --> 04:34.135
of precarious employment models upon academics.

04:35.115 --> 04:38.975
So there, there, there's no ex, there's no surprise really

04:39.005 --> 04:41.175
that, you know, mental health challenges are both

04:41.735 --> 04:43.375
a massive issue for academics

04:43.595 --> 04:45.175
and for students at the moment just

04:45.175 --> 04:46.895
because the nature of higher education

04:47.515 --> 04:51.335
has become incredibly intensified in recent years.

04:51.475 --> 04:54.725
And it is in that sort of intensified bubble

04:55.195 --> 04:57.485
that these issues around independence

04:57.485 --> 04:59.325
and criticality I think are so important.

05:00.115 --> 05:02.935
And it's not that there's any one simple

05:03.455 --> 05:04.495
solution to this complex problem.

05:05.495 --> 05:09.415
I think there is a, a need for funders to understand that

05:10.565 --> 05:11.855
promoting co-production

05:11.855 --> 05:14.935
and co-design does bring with it certain challenges.

05:14.955 --> 05:16.895
And I think there's been a naivety around that.

05:16.965 --> 05:20.095
Co-production, co-design have been seen as a good thing

05:20.525 --> 05:21.695
that we should all be doing.

05:22.365 --> 05:24.385
And that's been seen as almost a self-evident truth.

05:25.165 --> 05:27.305
And whilst I'm so pathetic to that argument,

05:27.585 --> 05:29.025
I will just say it's naive to think

05:29.025 --> 05:30.185
it's good all of the time.

05:31.045 --> 05:35.745
You can often end up in very paras relationships, academics

05:35.745 --> 05:38.025
that are desperate to get their next funding grant

05:38.025 --> 05:40.265
to keep their job mortgages family,

05:40.885 --> 05:42.145
but also some partners

05:42.145 --> 05:45.065
that you are work in can become reliant on the money

05:45.065 --> 05:47.225
that they can get through research funding themselves.

05:48.445 --> 05:51.225
So it can become very, very difficult space,

05:51.365 --> 05:52.385
to navigate.

05:53.125 --> 05:56.225
Um, so I think the broader argument is one in favor

05:56.325 --> 05:57.405
of pluralism

05:58.185 --> 06:02.005
and a research system where there is space for a wide range

06:02.025 --> 06:04.325
of different research approach approaches.

06:05.225 --> 06:08.285
And one where maybe there's slightly more reflectivity

06:08.425 --> 06:12.005
and reflexivity about how we do research

06:12.785 --> 06:16.805
and the great value of, independence.

06:16.805 --> 06:18.565
So I'll give you a specific example.

06:18.995 --> 06:22.165
I've just finished doing an evaluation of the ESRC

06:22.745 --> 06:23.805
policy fellows.

06:24.155 --> 06:25.405
This put early

06:25.505 --> 06:28.005
and mid-career academics into government departments

06:28.005 --> 06:31.005
for 18 months overall incredibly successful.

06:31.265 --> 06:34.165
But what was really interesting was the host organizations,

06:34.265 --> 06:35.445
the government departments,

06:36.315 --> 06:40.525
they really liked having those academics in purely

06:40.525 --> 06:42.845
because the academics were willing to say the things

06:43.115 --> 06:44.685
that all the other officials

06:44.865 --> 06:47.645
and senior civil servants in the room wouldn't say.

06:48.325 --> 06:51.465
And it was that injection of criticality free thinking,

06:51.785 --> 06:53.705
independence, being willing

06:53.705 --> 06:56.185
to ask the basic questions about why are we doing that?

06:56.485 --> 06:58.025
What's the problem we're trying to solve?

06:58.365 --> 07:00.745
Aren't there other policy tools that we might use?

07:02.245 --> 07:04.595
Those were the great breath of fresh air

07:04.595 --> 07:06.835
that academics took into the policy space.

07:07.655 --> 07:09.835
What's also interesting, there is a lot, a lot

07:09.835 --> 07:12.475
of those academics worked on specific projects

07:12.475 --> 07:13.595
and made a contribution.

07:14.725 --> 07:16.315
Again, going back to where we started

07:16.345 --> 07:19.555
with Johnson's work on like the, the, weakness

07:19.555 --> 07:20.635
of linear assumptions.

07:21.145 --> 07:24.235
Lots of those policy fellows, they would struggle to say,

07:24.235 --> 07:25.915
you know, in direct definite terms,

07:26.375 --> 07:28.475
what's the impact case study you've

07:28.495 --> 07:29.715
got from your fellowship?

07:29.985 --> 07:33.635
Because their contribution was broader, it was richer.

07:34.135 --> 07:36.075
One of the, the fellows was very clear

07:36.075 --> 07:38.235
and said, you know, the, the, the best sort

07:38.235 --> 07:39.235
of recommendation

07:39.545 --> 07:42.635
that they ever got was a senior civil servant said to them,

07:43.415 --> 07:46.435
what's really happened since you came into the team is

07:46.435 --> 07:49.515
that my staff now ask better questions.

07:51.485 --> 07:53.945
Now it's very hard to tie down

07:53.965 --> 07:57.135
and evidence the value of that, whereas in fact,

07:57.135 --> 08:00.535
what you are making is a more diffuse systemic contribution

08:01.385 --> 08:03.455
which can percolate through the whole machine.

08:04.775 --> 08:07.115
So it's capturing those subtleties

08:07.775 --> 08:10.835
and being aware of the, the, the risks of,

08:11.385 --> 08:14.275
co-production, unthoughtful co-production.

08:14.835 --> 08:16.915
I think the big area for research in this area

08:17.135 --> 08:18.635
is research on research.

08:18.895 --> 08:21.395
And it's all about research on research leadership.

08:21.745 --> 08:23.275
What does research leadership mean

08:23.375 --> 08:25.035
for people at every stage of their career?

08:25.035 --> 08:29.395
Because actually being an academic is in many ways far more

08:29.595 --> 08:31.835
challenging than it was 5, 10, 15 years ago.

08:32.455 --> 08:36.235
And academics have to take much more self-leadership for

08:36.235 --> 08:37.715
how they navigate through the career.

08:38.495 --> 08:41.915
And if you are running large grants, the whole time of,

08:41.935 --> 08:46.075
you know, single discipline loan scholar model studies has,

08:46.095 --> 08:47.195
has, has largely gone.

08:47.695 --> 08:50.195
So research leaders are now running very big teams

08:50.835 --> 08:52.795
boundary spanning teams with research users,

08:53.715 --> 08:54.955
research leaders themselves.

08:55.185 --> 08:56.565
We need to rethink the support,

08:56.945 --> 08:58.525
the structure, the training.

08:59.145 --> 09:02.165
How does research leadership dovetail with equality,

09:02.235 --> 09:03.645
diversity and inclusion?

09:04.065 --> 09:06.605
How does it help with the mental health agenda?

09:07.025 --> 09:09.165
So thinking about research leadership

09:09.465 --> 09:12.125
and what it means for individuals, organizations,

09:12.545 --> 09:15.325
and systems at a broader level is,

09:15.345 --> 09:17.565
for me gonna be the big issue for the next 10 years.

00:00 - Steve Johnson is an academic who specializes in entrepreneurial studies, what entrepreneurship means, how entrepreneurs operate, and particularly how they can find evidence that they're impacting upon society more broadly. And his argument was actually, you know, one that's been

00:16 - around for some time, that assumptions research that then leads that can be clearly evidenced, like through audit based models is very difficult because the relationship between academic research and the policy world tends to be very non-linear, very fuzzy, very messy. So he was using this argument basically to say that entrepreneurship research may well have had a much bigger impact than it's been able to prove. I suppose the only flip side of that argument is

00:47 - that also entrepreneurship studies might have had no impact at all. And yet the idea that it's a very fuzzy relationship provides quite a nice intellectual shield to hide behind. But that's not one just faced by entrepreneurship studies. It's one faced by arts, humanities, social sciences more broadly. What I was interested in is, is what was, what was Johnson's real problem? Was it almost at what I would say,

01:12 - a meta level about the meta governance of higher education, about the commodification of knowledge and those deep ontological epistemological methodological challenges about impact valuation? Was it at a, a more baseline level that he just doesn't like the sort of whole, impact agenda and the, the, the emergence of ref impact case studies and things like that? because it really depends upon, I think there's a, there are, there are questions at each and every level.

01:44 - but for me the big question is this meta level about what is the role of an academic, what is the role of professor? What is the role of higher education vis-a-vis relationships with society more generally? And more importantly, and I suppose this is where the, the, the big level questions and the more specific policy level is how do academics engage

02:04 - with policy makers whilst retaining a high degree of independence and criticality? I mean, I suppose my, my main position on this, which I've written about more, more broadly, is that although I'm in favor of more integrated boundary spanning research methods, co-production, co-design, working closely with potential research users at the same time, we've got to be aware that that brings certain challenges and a small p politics of research.

02:38 - You know, let's, this is a time when academics are under huge pressure to bring in research funding. They're under huge pressure to increase their publications profile. And yet the vast majority of research grant opportunities now from funders demand some form of co-production with potential research users. So my concern is there is a potential there for a Faustian bargain, whereas the academics engage in research projects with research users.

03:08 - So that opens up the doors to significant research funding. But there may well be an unwritten quid pro quo. The deal for signing up and getting those research users on site and in your project is an understanding that you will temper your criticality, your independence. 'cause otherwise, particularly in a political climate, external bodies won't want to come into the project. My my concern is about the, the politics of co-production risks about the contamination of research

03:39 - and the need for academics always to retain a sense of, or awareness of criticality and independence. 'cause once you lose that, it's very hard to, to regain it. I think what's really interesting is first of all, you know, I've been in higher education 25 years and in that time, the whole sociopolitical context within which higher education works has changed dramatically. Far more politicized, a much sugar figure shift towards, solution orientated, government defined

04:12 - research funding opportunities. And within academia itself a huge shift in pressure towards excellence, excellence in teaching, in research, in publications, in administration, in delivering societal impact. And at the same time the growth of precarious employment models upon academics. So there, there, there's no ex, there's no surprise really that, you know, mental health challenges are both a massive issue for academics

04:43 - and for students at the moment just because the nature of higher education has become incredibly intensified in recent years. And it is in that sort of intensified bubble that these issues around independence and criticality I think are so important. And it's not that there's any one simple solution to this complex problem. I think there is a, a need for funders to understand that promoting co-production

05:11 - and co-design does bring with it certain challenges. And I think there's been a naivety around that. Co-production, co-design have been seen as a good thing that we should all be doing. And that's been seen as almost a self-evident truth. And whilst I'm so pathetic to that argument, I will just say it's naive to think it's good all of the time. You can often end up in very paras relationships, academics that are desperate to get their next funding grant

05:38 - to keep their job mortgages family, but also some partners that you are work in can become reliant on the money that they can get through research funding themselves. So it can become very, very difficult space, to navigate. so I think the broader argument is one in favor of pluralism and a research system where there is space for a wide range of different research approach approaches.

06:05 - And one where maybe there's slightly more reflectivity and reflexivity about how we do research and the great value of, independence. So I'll give you a specific example. I've just finished doing an evaluation of the ESRC policy fellows. This put early and mid-career academics into government departments for 18 months overall incredibly successful. But what was really interesting was the host organizations,

06:34 - the government departments, they really liked having those academics in purely because the academics were willing to say the things that all the other officials and senior civil servants in the room wouldn't say. And it was that injection of criticality free thinking, independence, being willing to ask the basic questions about why are we doing that? What's the problem we're trying to solve? Aren't there other policy tools that we might use?

07:02 - Those were the great breath of fresh air that academics took into the policy space. What's also interesting, there is a lot, a lot of those academics worked on specific projects and made a contribution. Again, going back to where we started with Johnson's work on like the, the, weakness of linear assumptions. Lots of those policy fellows, they would struggle to say, you know, in direct definite terms,

07:26 - what's the impact case study you've got from your fellowship? Because their contribution was broader, it was richer. One of the, the fellows was very clear and said, you know, the, the, the best sort of recommendation that they ever got was a senior civil servant said to them, what's really happened since you came into the team is that my staff now ask better questions. Now it's very hard to tie down

07:53 - and evidence the value of that, whereas in fact, what you are making is a more diffuse systemic contribution which can percolate through the whole machine. So it's capturing those subtleties and being aware of the, the, the risks of, co-production, unthoughtful co-production. I think the big area for research in this area is research on research. And it's all about research on research leadership. What does research leadership mean

08:23 - for people at every stage of their career? Because actually being an academic is in many ways far more challenging than it was 5, 10, 15 years ago. And academics have to take much more self-leadership for how they navigate through the career. And if you are running large grants, the whole time of, you know, single discipline loan scholar model studies has, has, has largely gone. So research leaders are now running very big teams boundary spanning teams with research users,

08:53 - research leaders themselves. We need to rethink the support, the structure, the training. How does research leadership dovetail with equality, diversity and inclusion? How does it help with the mental health agenda? So thinking about research leadership and what it means for individuals, organizations, and systems at a broader level is, for me gonna be the big issue for the next 10 years.

Faculti AI can make mistakes