ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that academics have taken an uncharacteristically uncritical approach to research impact, and that, as a measure of the societal worth of university research, impact is complex, difficult to estimate and highly volatile. The authors define different categories of research in relation to impact value - responsive, anticipatory and serendipitous - and ask whether each category is to be accorded equal weight in making impact assessments. Further, a hypothetical legal case figuring inputs from an academic forensic speech scientist is tracked through various scenarios from the point when the crime was committed through the arrest and trial of the suspect to an eventual Court of Appeal hearing. The authors argue that research impact gained at any stage in the process can be augmented, reduced or removed by events that occur at a subsequent stage. Finally, and with these points in mind, a real forensic case is presented and discussed.
