608 times ‘impact’ in a glowing report, but reality is less straightforward

The word ‘impact’ is mentioned 608 times and the terms ‘engagement’ (101 times) and ’stakeholders’ (103) are also hard to miss. The language in the report A university with a purpose: reflecting on our societal impact, published last September, leaves no room for doubt: EUR encourages entrepreneurship, works extensively with societal partners and rewards scientists who work with colleagues from other disciplines to create knowledge of particular benefit to society. In their minds, unsuspecting readers can already see the Rotterdam researchers clambering out of their ‘ivory towers’ (mentioned three times) en masse.

Professor Arwin van Buuren readily admits that the reality is less straightforward. As Strategic Dean for Impact & Engagement, it is his responsibility to help drive these ambitions. “I’m proud of what we’ve already achieved”, he says. “We’re on the right track, but we’re not there yet. For example, not everyone feels free to conduct impactful research.”

The question is not only what is needed to generate more impact, but also: what are we actually talking about? What is impact? The preliminary response from EUR covers fourteen pages of text on the six ways researchers can make an impact. For instance, they can facilitate societal dialogue, help develop policy measures, contribute to a better understanding of social problems, or foment ‘change’. With such a broad definition, it seems almost impossible not to have an impact.

According to Julia Wittmayer, a researcher at the Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences (ESSB) and at DRIFT, this is exactly one of the problems the university is still struggling with. “The definition is so broad that you can just keep doing what you’re already doing and still make an impact – you just have to show proof now. Impact is also a bad metaphor, because it suggests a one-way street. Instead, it should work both ways.” According to Wittmayer, contributing to solutions to complex social problems requires scientists to work much more intensively with societal partners and government agencies.

They often do. For example, Eveline Crone has been appointed as an Erasmus professor to work on societal impact in a transdisciplinary way. Her research revolves around the conditions in which adolescents can best develop.

“It was very important for me to have both feet in the community to get a better grip on what young people are concerned about”, she says. “I work strategically with Albeda, which is the largest senior secondary vocational school in the region. My lab consists of about fifteen young people, mostly students, postdocs and young assistant professors. We work a lot with youth panels and really conduct our research directly in the corridors of Albeda. We also visit Rotterdam youth organisations. We use a research method, participatory action research, in which we turn things around. Young people themselves get to work by saying: this is what concerns us, this is our life and it’s important that this is explored.”

“Of course, I also base my work on years of study”, Crone adds, “but still, it was necessary for me to conduct more qualitative research and really work with the young people involved.”

The new insights this way of working can yield is illustrated by a research project on performance pressure. “There was a very strong perception in society that technology has a negative impact on this, as young people are always ‘on’ because of social media. We thought so too, but conversations with young people themselves revealed that they actually saw friends and technology itself as relaxing, rather than pressurising. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the problem isn’t there, but it does help us ask our research questions differently and conduct better research.”

More engaged research takes time, which is necessary to build networks and gain trust. EUR helps teachers and researchers who want to work with other parties on a topic, or in the community. Teamwork on the part of the researchers is also important, Van Buuren says. “A number of faculties are therefore working with smaller teams that have room for different talents. For example, I have one colleague who you really shouldn’t put in front of a group of civil servants – but he can write a fantastic paper based on our research. Science can sometimes be quite individualistic, whereas we should learn to make better use of each other’s talents.”

Not every faculty is quite ready to change traditional ways of working. Sandra Meeuwsen, director of the Erasmus Center for Sport Integrity & Transition (ESPRIT), says she also experienced this. The Center worked with partners from the sports world on research projects about the promotion of integrity and inclusion in sport. The Erasmus School of Philosophy, with which the Center is affiliated, announced last summer that it did not want to continue with the Center. According to Meeuwsen, this was partly due to a lack of money – but she also observed that ‘impact-oriented’ work was at odds with the rather traditional method of operating within the faculty.

“Among other things, this faculty studies the history of philosophy and translates it into themes that are relevant today, such as sustainability, dignity or euthanasia. However, it’s not in the faculty’s DNA to make the shift to how we can give back to society. That also requires very different competences. People come here to obtain doctorates, become lecturers and eventually professors. In that process, you have very little room to develop a position in society in a particular field of expertise.”

The university’s ‘impact strategy’ departs from the premise that faculties embrace their societal role, but Meeuwsen calls this ‘an incredibly difficult ambition’. “I was often accused of spending too much time in The Hague, Zeist or Papendal, where the sports world meets. Those locations are precisely where we can identify urgencies and needs. Of course, you have to abstract our somewhat diffuse research question into philosophical questions, which is a hugely difficult thing to do. You have to learn to make your way out of your own head and into the real world, the language of practice, and legitimise your profession in that arena. It’s much more comfortable to say: I write relevant, in-depth texts and it’s up to the publisher whether they end up in The Hague.”

In a report, based on interviews with EUR researchers, Wittmayer concluded two years ago that scientists often do not feel adequately supported in their impact-oriented research. In particular, the pressure to publish articles to advance one’s career can get in the way. Van Buuren recognises the problem, but mostly sees progress. “There’s a tension, because if you’ve been active as a scientist here and you want to go to America, you have to meet their standards.”

Still, he sees ample reason for optimism. As an example, Rotterdam actively participates in the national system of recognition and rewards, an attempt by Dutch universities to make academic careers less one-sidedly focused on publications and make more room for diverse talent development. “We’re in full swing on that score. Among other things, we’ve adapted our process of career advancement by creating much more space for people who don’t have a classical research profile, but more of a social profile. It remains difficult, but we’re on the right track.”

And what about the cuts awaiting Dutch universities? Could they quash impact ambitions? On the contrary, Van Buuren believes. “You can already see that research calls from the Dutch Research Council and the European Union ask for a paragraph on societal impact and for cooperation within a consortium of different parties by default now. That helps enormously. With the government reducing the flow of funds, cooperation with parties outside the campus will only become more important.”