Table Of ContentHBK|w:138mm;h:216mm;sp:12mm|Design:green|RAPSticket:263428|Created:20200713_105941
ROUTLEDGE FOCUS
JaIm
m
ep
sa
Gc
ot
win
andIn
t
He
enryrnat IMPACT IN
Rio
edwoonalA INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
dffa
ir
s
The Quest for World-Leading Research
James Gow and Henry Redwood
aninformabusiness
ISBN 978-0-367-90203-2
,!7IA3G7-jacadc!
www.routledge.com
RoutledgetitlesareavailableaseBookeditionsinarangeof Focus
digitalformats
Impact in International Affairs
This book examines how and to what extent academic research in
politics and international studies has had ‘impact’ — in doing so, it
also considers what might characterise ‘world-leading’ research
impact.
International Relations was always meant to have impact — it was
intended to make a difference in the world, when the subject was
formally founded to understand and prevent war in 1919. This volume
addresses the concept of ‘impact’ and offers a typology of the term —
instrumental, conceptual, capacity building and procedural. The
authors examine 111 impact case studies in the UK Research
Excellence Framework (2014) that were classified as having achieved
the highest level of evaluation, and they identify eight characteristics
that mark ‘world-leading’ impact. The book concludes that process
and public and media engagement are previously underestimated
aspects of impact in official approaches. It further demonstrates that
achieving the top levels of impact in international relations is possible,
but that factors such as the nature of the subject, the approach of
researchers and mean-spiritedness in the peer review process
inhibited this.
This book will be of much interest to students of politics and
international studies, as well as educational research and policy
makers, and anyone interested in, or working on, research impact.
James Gow is Professor of International Peace and Security at King’s
College London, UK.
Henry Redwood is Lecturer in International Relations at King’s
College London, UK.
Impact in International
Affairs
The Quest for World-Leading
Research
James Gow and Henry Redwood
First published 2021
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an
informa business
© 2021 James Gow and Henry Redwood
The right of James Gow and Henry Redwood to be identified as
authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance
with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be
trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the
British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Gow, James, author. | Redwood, Henry, 1988- author.
Title: Impact in international affairs: the quest for world-
leading research/James Gow and Henry Redwood.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge,
2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020013904 (print) | LCCN 2020013905
(ebook) | ISBN 9780367902032 (hardback) | ISBN
9781003023081 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: International relations–Research–Case
studies.
Classification: LCC JZ1234 .G68 2021 (print) | LCC JZ1234
(ebook) | DDC 327.072–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020013904
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020013905
ISBN: 978-0-367-90203-2 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-02308-1 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman
by MPS Limited, Dehradun
Contents
List of tables vi
Preface vii
1 Introduction 1
2 Impact — concept and issues 22
3 Impact — towards a typology 36
4 International affairs 51
5 4* Impact — world leading 64
6 The eight characteristics of world-leading,
4* impact: 1–5 76
7 The eight characteristics of world-leading,
4* impact: 6–8 95
8 Conclusion 117
Annex 1 125
Selected Bibliography 127
Index 129
Tables
5.1 University of Sheffield 69
5.2 University of Essex 70
Preface
We wish to acknowledge the excellent support, help and research
assistance of Ernst Dijxhoorn, while at King’s College London, when
early thinking about ‘impact’ was developing; he moved on to pursue
other agendas at Leiden University. We also wish to thank two Steven
Hills for their interest, encouragement and help — one from Research
England, who accidentally set this project going, and the other formerly
of the UK Diplomatic Service and now Credit Suisse. In addition, we
are grateful to the School of Security Studies at King’s College London
and its Director, Professor Wyn Bowen, in particular, for funding the
Research Associate post (from funds allocated by the Faculty of Social
Science and Public Policy) that gave Henry the opportunity to become
engaged, initially, as Research Associate on impact, and also Professor
Mike Goodman, who supported this. We are also grateful to the many
colleagues with whom we have worked on research projects that have
made differences in the world and who have supported us, most
notably Rachel Kerr, Tiffany Fairey and Milena Michalski at King’s,
and Elma Hašimbegović, Elma Hodžić and Velma Šarić in Bosnia, on
two remarkable AHRC-PaCCS-GCRF-funded projects, both of which
explored impact in practice: ‘Art and Reconciliation: Conflict Culture
and Community’ (AH/P005365/1), on which we both worked; and ‘Art
and Reconciliation’, AHRC-GCRF ‘Art and Reconciliation — Open
Calls and the Living Museum: Innovation, Research and the History
Museum of Bosnia and Hercegovina’ (AH/S005641/1), on which only
the more senior of us worked. We are also pleased to acknowledge the
general benefit to this project of various other projects that benefited
from AHRC and ESRC funding that we received.
1 Introduction
International Relations was always meant to have impact.1 That
is, research under that umbrella was intended to make a difference
in the world.2 First established formally at the University of
Wales, Aberystwyth, in 1919, through the creation of an academic
chair with that title, by a liberal political figure, David Davies, in
the wake of the First World War, its mission was to understand
the causes of war and to use that understanding to outlaw war.3
Of course, that was a mission impossible.4 But, it made clear the
intended purpose, as with medicine, not simply to know and
understand, but to improve the world, even if, as some scholars
observed, there could be hidden or inadvertent, or problematic,
consequences, whether in terms of race, colonialism, or wider security
1 ‘Impact’ is a key term in the present study. Throughout, we use it, fairly simply, to
mean research ‘making a difference’ in the world. Although ‘impact’ is used, generally,
it should be understood that this always means ‘research impact’ in the relevant
contexts. We have tried to eschew any other use of ‘impact’ to avoid confusion. As a
term, a subject and an agenda, it is discussed below, in this Introduction and, more
fully, in Chapter 2.
2 We wish to acknowledge the support and help and of all those mentioned in the
Preface, as well as research funding from the School of Security Studies and SSPP,
King’s College London; AHRC-PaCCS-GCRF ‘Art and Reconciliation: Conflict
Culture and Community’ (AH/P005365/1); and ‘Art and Reconciliation’, AHRC-
GCRF ‘Art and Reconciliation — Open Calls and the Living Museum: Innovation,
Research and the History Museum of Bosnia and Hercegovina’ (AH/S005641/1).
3 We offer a summary of International Relations, as a field, and an essential history of
the creation of the Chair at Aberystwyth, below.
4 See Michael Howard, War and the Liberal Conscience, London: Clarendon, 1979 and
Revised Ed. London: Hurst and Co., 2008, for an unmatchable account of the en-
during and almost ever-present phenomenon of war, and seemingly inevitable failures
of attempts to eradicate it — each attempt preceding armed conflict worse than
anything that had gone before.
