Survey Finds Social Scientists Feel Unsupported in Seeking Societal Impact

“Research impact” means different things to different people. Some refer broadly to how science changes behaviors, beliefs, or practices outside academic institutions. Others to how science cumulatively builds on previous work. Others use it synonymously with citation counts at the journal level. Impact is “complex, subtle, diffuse and many-layered,” as Charlie Rapple notes, accumulating over time rather than being captured by a single metric.

The nuances are greater when looking from a global perspective. In the UK, the Research Excellence Framework (REF) emphasises benefits beyond academia, while Australia’s assessments has focused on industry collaboration and economic outcomes. In the Global South, impact is often tied to development goals and community empowerment. The US, with no national framework, relies on institutional missions and funding agency priorities.

Despite these differences, one theme emerges: the need for flexible, inclusive frameworks that respect regional contexts while fostering global dialogue about the value of research.

A metrics dilemma?

Frequent readers of this blog are all too familiar with the problems that stem from an overreliance on citation-based metrics like the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). For social and behavioural science, the challenge is acute. Traditional metrics often underestimate the value of social science research, which tends to have longer-term, diffuse impact. Uniform indicators can disadvantage social science scholars, whose work may be more relevant to policy or practice than to rapid citation cycles.

While many institutions and organisations are pushing back – for example, the Leiden Manifesto, CoARA, and DORA advocate for qualitative assessment and broader recognition of scholarly work – it’s hard to judge researcher sentiment globally.  

How do they really feel about making research impact? Does the research assessment conversation present a “dilemma” for them, or are they happy to focus on citation-based metrics? To help us better understand we at Sage undertook a major survey of social science researchers themselves. 

Key findings

• Societal impact matters—But researchers feel alone. Most social science researchers say societal impact is personally important (average rating 4.3 out of 5), but they’re less confident their peers (4.0) or institutional leaders (3.8) feel the same. While 92 percent agree that the ultimate goal of research is to benefit society, only 76 percent believe their peers agree. Just 68 percent feel their institutions share this view.

• Scholarly contribution is valued—But not always by administrators. In addition to their emphasis on societal impact, researchers still care deeply about contributing to the scholarly record. But they don’t sense the same enthusiasm from university leadership. Many perceive a disconnect between academic and administrative priorities, with leaders often focused on publication metrics or material outcomes.
• Career advancement isn’t the main driver. Only 55 percent of researchers agreed that career advancement is the ultimate goal of research, compared to 78 percent for their peers and 69 percent for institutional leadership. Most see themselves as working to do good in the world, not just climbing the academic ladder.

• Prestige metrics create tension. Peer regard is more important to researchers than citation metrics, but they perceive that administrators prioritise impact factors. This creates tension around tenure and promotion, with researchers caught between publishing in journals respected by peers and those valued by decision-makers.
• Rewards for real-world application are scarce. Only 37 percent of respondents said their institution rewards efforts to apply research outside academia through tenure or promotion, and 30 percent said they receive no recognition at all. Many noted a lack of clarity or consistency in how institutions reward societal impact.

What can we do about It?

The survey findings suggest that while individual researchers are motivated to make a difference, institutional systems and reward structures often lag. Here are a few steps we can take as a community to address this:

Foster systemic change, not just individual effort

While communications training and individual outreach are valuable, real progress requires changes to systems, structures, and relationships. Universities, funders, and publishers should continue to work together (hopefully at an accelerated pace) to align incentives with societal impact.

Make impact visible and valued

Integrate external impact into faculty evaluations and promotion criteria. Recognise and reward non-traditional scholarly outputs—such as policy engagement, public outreach, and community partnerships—that advance university missions and societal goals. Again, this change is happening here and there, but needs more consistent application.

Build networks and collaborations

Encourage researchers to connect with peers who share their commitment to societal impact. Collaborative projects can demonstrate the return on investment for science, especially in times of declining funding.

Communicate values clearly

University leaders should articulate how societal impact fits into their mission and reward systems (and make sure they have a mission to share around in the first place!). Transparency can help bridge the gap between faculty and administration and foster a healthier academic environment.

Advocate for inclusive metrics

Support the development and adoption of context-sensitive measures that reflect the unique contributions of social science research. Push for frameworks that value long-term, diffuse impact alongside traditional scholarly metrics.

Hard times call for a focus on impact

When science budgets become strapped, social science is often the first to see funding shrink. This couldn’t be truer than now – especially in the United States where I reside – and the issue will become more precarious internationally if global economies weaken. To safeguard support for our fields, it’s critical to frame the value and impact of science in terms of its benefits to society, not only to comply with funder mandates, but to increase use for public benefit.

Despite – or perhaps because of – dramatic shifts in the sociopolitical landscape, the enduring commitment of social science researchers to providing this impact is clear. By working together—across institutions, disciplines, and borders—we can create an environment where research not only advances knowledge but also delivers tangible benefits for communities, workplaces, and society at large.

Let’s use these findings as a springboard for action. The future of social science depends on our ability to champion impact, challenge outdated incentives, and build systems that truly serve the public good.