Steering universities towards societal impact: governance by measurement?

This paper examines how five nations steer universities towards societal impact through national research policy settings. Drawing on a qualitative analysis of 14 policy documents and topic modelling across a corpus of 96 documents, we compare three national systems that employ structured national performance measurement frameworks for impact (Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK) with two that do not (the Netherlands and the US). Our analysis reveals variation in how ‘impact’ is constructed across these systems, whether they use performance measurement frameworks or not. We find that the biggest difference between systems lies not in whether impact is prioritised or how it is defined, but in how systems with performance measurement frameworks are associated with narrower conceptions of impact. We argue that such frameworks function not merely as assessment tools, but as governing instruments that steer through this measurement, potentially constraining what counts as valuable research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
Published
2026-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2026.2726018
Primary Topic
Higher Education Governance and Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Steering universities towards societal impact: governance by measurement?

Jenny M. Lewis, Kate Williams
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
Higher Education Governance and Development
article

Steering universities towards societal impact: governance by measurement?

Jenny M. Lewis, Kate Williams
article en

Abstract

This paper examines how five nations steer universities towards societal impact through national research policy settings. Drawing on a qualitative analysis of 14 policy documents and topic modelling across a corpus of 96 documents, we compare three national systems that employ structured national performance measurement frameworks for impact (Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK) with two that do not (the Netherlands and the US). Our analysis reveals variation in how ‘impact’ is constructed across these systems, whether they use performance measurement frameworks or not. We find that the biggest difference between systems lies not in whether impact is prioritised or how it is defined, but in how systems with performance measurement frameworks are associated with narrower conceptions of impact. We argue that such frameworks function not merely as assessment tools, but as governing instruments that steer through this measurement, potentially constraining what counts as valuable research.

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
The University of Melbourne (AU)
University of Melbourne, Australian Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Higher Education Governance and Development
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.