Towards a manifesto for better SSH Evaluation Final group exercise Towards a manifesto for better SSH Evaluation

Three questions to develop our manifesto On the basis of what we have discussed in the last three days – In order to develop better Evaluation of SSH’s Societal Impact: What should we (the scientists) think differently (about)? What should be done differently (by others)? What should we do differently ourselves? Firstly, write down key points for each of these yourselves, then discuss them with a neighbour Finally we will notate them as a group

What should we (the scientists) think differently (about)? Challenging the stereotype of the excellence/ engagement; relevance/ rigour trade-off Thinking consciously about how we build impact into our vision of ourselves as researchers Impact is not an activity that sets apart disciplines that can’t do proper, rigorous research Be more critical of the idea of impact and develop conceptual frameworks to include variety in national science systems A need for more openness as scientists We need to be prepared to give something up if societies also comes halfway to meet us Investigating what happens in countries that are seen as being ‘bad’ at creating impact but where it does happen Being in favour of impact does not mean that everyone should be forced to be actively thinking about/ creating impact – the ‘division of labour’ Find ways to share ideas and being open without losing control & credit over one’s contributions – COLLEGIALITY Be confident in our own role as researchers and that an academic role can be resolved without compromise More self-consciousness of the position of the researcher in social (power) structures

What should be done differently (by others)? Policymakers should be conscious of why we would be willing to answer their questions – get out of ‘their’ ivory tower! People need to be better at asking questions with real answers and be willing to hear answers they do not like More supportive organisations & (uni?) structures to reward and respect varieties of societal impact creation  research More systematic recognition for impact creation to embed it more in the ‘small things’ of academic life Politicians should find constructive ways of engaging with critical academic voices and avoid a ‘climate of fear’ in sensitive areas Policymakers (e.g. in sensitive housing research) also need to embrace the idea of openness so we can be more open Universities need to support impact processes for all and be less self-satisfied in the ‘usual suspect countries’ (NO, NL, UK) A supportive ‘impact ecosystem’ for getting ideas out (e.g. supporting these ‘small things’ activities like a YouTube video) Universities must find a way to be proud of ‘small impact activities’ and communicate that (and not just recruit students and promote professors) ‘Them and us’ need to come together and work constructively to create impact!

What should we do differently ourselves? Build trust (friendship?) with stakeholders and turn it from ‘us vs them’ into a team effort, find students important, empathise Working with people needs to help them also meet their own goals as well We need to break outside of the top down view of good practice impact and look at our impact ecosystems and opportunities Be open to talk to press/ policy-makers – signal and ‘badge’ your openness to engagement; TALK TO YOUR PRESS TEAM! Do more comparative analysis to understand why engagement can be hard in different contexts We need to be conscious of our ‘distance’ and be willing to tell people what we doing an honest and non-patronising way We should understand the value of our thinking and ideas and not just the monetization of outputs as ‘value’ Have a willingness to allow external stakeholders to articulate problems and to use those to ‘tune’ our academic activities ‘Hold our noses’ and be prepared to tell our impact stories upwards in instrumental ways to give us a space to create impact Fit ‘impactful work’ into our ethical and identity reference frames not as add-on Look to support people trying to engage; they are not trying to do ‘shoddy work’