Barely a third of social scientists believe their university would promote them based on the strength of their research impact, a global poll of researchers has found.

Asked whether their institution would promote or give tenure to a scholar for their efforts to apply research outside academia, only 37 per cent of 1,805 social scientists surveyed by Sage agreed.

Only 28 per cent of respondents feel their efforts to make a difference outside academia would lead to additional research funding from their institution while just 35 per cent said their university offered awards or prizes to recognise impact.

Thirty per cent of the survey’s respondents, who came from 92 countries, say they receive no recognition at all for this work.

ߣߣ��Ƶ

Instead, the survey by the US-based social sciences publisher suggested institutions tend to value and reward publication in highly-cited journals more than academics. Asked whether the ultimate goal of research is to make a positive impact on society, 92 per cent agreed this is the case for themselves but only 68 per cent of respondents feel this is true for institutions.

“I don’t care about impacting my colleagues and being cited – I want to impact practice in the field,” explained one US-based respondent, who added there is “no good way to know if this happens”.

ߣߣ��Ƶ

“All the other metrics (like rejection rates, Google scores) are internal to the discipline and don’t really measure anything useful,” they continued, according to the Sage report, titled Do social scientists care if they make societal impact? published on 9 December.

Similarly 91 per cent of researchers agree the ultimate goal of research is to build on the literature and enable future research but only 71 per cent feel the leadership at their institution agree with this.

That perceived misalignment between the motivation of social scientists and institutions should prompt a rethink on whether prestige metrics used in academia are misaligned with values, argues the Sage report.

It notes how researchers value peer regard more than citation metrics, yet perceive that administrators prioritise impact factors, creating tension in tenure and promotion decisions.

ߣߣ��Ƶ

“At times, this means we have to challenge the status quo of what matters in higher education, for example, by moving beyond an overemphasis on scholarly impact measures toward recognising research that benefits people through policy, practice, and public life,” said Ziyad Marar, president of global publishing at Sage.

“It’s important that we listen closely to researchers themselves as we do this work – understanding what motivates them, where they focus their efforts, and what barriers stand in their way. This report does exactly that,” he added.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com