The approach

Explaining why academics make exaggerated claims about their influence

This paper examines an increasingly pervasive aspect of neoliberal research funding regimes, namely the expectation that academic research should influence non-academic policy and practice. More specifically, it explores the reaction of British academic researchers with an interest in sustainable tourism to what has become known as the impact agenda.

How do they conceptualise impact? Do they moralise impact (perhaps in relation to the limits of their expertise or the veracity of their claims)? Does this aspect of research policy affect their approach to academic work? The findings of a qualitative study reveal a constituency of academic researchers primarily concerned with their own performativity. There is seemingly limited moral framing of research impact and a suggestion of moral hypocrisy. Widespread affective subjectivation provides a plausible explanation for current academic behaviour.

The paper concludes by arguing that without a collective re-thinking of how sustainable tourism research might gain influence beyond academia, it is probable that performative practices will continue to characterise academic responses to the impact agenda.

Contributing to the debate

The official valuing of research internationally is increasingly tied to demonstrations of impact beyond academia; in research policy terms, valuable research is becoming that which can be shown to have shaped the practices of policymakers, practitioners, consumers or other constituencies. By taking issue with Bauer et al.’s assessment, this reply challenges tourism scholars to engage in a rigorous and nuanced analysis of the connection between non-academic impact and their work as academic researchers.