Karolina Lendák-Kabók Marc Vanholsbeeck

1. The diversity in impact conceptualization and engagement: accounting for policy, epistemic and local contexts Karolina Lendák-Kabók Marc Vanholsbeeck

2. Research questions • To what extent can impact be considered as a “boundary object”? • In Star and Griesemer (1989) perspective, boundary objects are “objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual-site use. They may be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable, a means of translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is key in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds.”

3. Hypothesis Although there are some common crosscutting elements, variations in definitions/framing of impact, and in engagement can be linked to a diversity in policy, epistemic and local contexts.

4. Methodology • A sample of 30 questionnaires from CARES, with maximum diversity • Analysis grid with dimensions relating to the personal characteristics, the engagement (attitude and motivation), the definitions (framing), the policy, epistemic and local contexts

5. Commonalities in definition • Mostly positive framing of impact, even if it engages the reseacher’s responsibility • Impact as a complex notion irreductible to one definition • Role of other actors in impact creation • Framing of impact by dissociation: • Impact from SSH vs. Impact from STEM • Impact from basic research vs. Impact from applied research • Direct and short term vs. indirect and long term • Impact at ecosystemic vs. individual level • Impact as a research goal vs. impact as an outcome of research

6. Commonalities in definition • Specific SSH pathways to societal impact • Transformation of research in policies • Education as a pathway to impact • Research on researchers • fosters their critical reflexivity • contributes making them more open to new paradigms (and to more engagement into impact driven activities)

7. Commonalities in engagement • No meaningful research without engagement • Accountability: giving back to society what society funds • Contrast between high motivation and lack of local support in funding, training, dedicated services and dedicated time • Contrast between high motivation and lack of career incentives • Engagement in impact driven activities in tension with publication of articles in international top journals

8. Social worlds • Stage of career • PhD candidates may feel illegitimate since inexperimented • Postdocs focus on publications and mobility make it difficult to rebuild local networks of stakeholders • Tenured professors take less risk in engaging into impact and can choose their research topics

9. Social worlds • Generation gap beteen « navel-gazers » and « entrepreneurial » ECIs • Conflicting definitions of excellence • Reject of impact to maintain dominance in the discipline • Type of research objects: perceived attractiveness to a broader audience • Type of methodology: « desk paper writing » vs. co-creation with external stakeholders • Perceived relationship between research and impact • Basic research to be preserved from impact • Impact as a potential outcome of research • Impact integrated (as research material or « inspiration ») into research (virtuous circle of impact)

10. Social worlds • Motivation: some respondents first motivated by socia impact and second by research as a tool towards it, others motivated be academic inquiry first, and impact as a potential outcome • Differences in local possibilities of funding, training, support and dedicated time • Existing policies at national or institutional level (e.g. impact required for the PhD)

11. Policy implications • Degree of convergence/divergence to/from policy driven definitions/framing of impact • from « mode 2 of knowledge production » (Gibbons et al. 1994) to « missions » (Kattel and Mazzucato 2018) • Not adressing SSH as a block while implementing the impact agenda • Taking into consideration the different impact related social worlds within SSH and their specific ways of framing and engaging into impact