ABSTRACT
While clear ‘conceptual’ impact results in changed thinking, then ‘procedural’ impact remains at a cathectic level. Those involved ‘feel’ that research engagement has been beneficial, without being able to articulate, or characterise, impact beyond this. The ‘new universities’ from the post-1990 era dominate these groupings — though we must recall that some from this category had 100 per cent 4* submissions. Perhaps the strongest inference on impact that could be drawn from the REF2014 exercise was a prima facie approximation of overall performance across the main panels. International politics is a field of study with its very roots entwined in notions of impact. It seems likely that those tasked with evaluating the field tended to define ‘impact’ in limited terms of policy, giving less weight to cultural, legal, social or other forms of impact.
