Impact and management studies: why making practical impact is not a core academic expectation
Impact and management studies: why making practical impact is not a core academic expectation
Lately, a new set of expectations is being formed for academics by various stakeholders, that is, to generate “impact” on practice, in addition to their main roles of conducting research, making academic contributions, and teaching. We challenge the legitimacy of this expectation. Further, we argue that there should be major differences between primary and secondary impact. The impact of new academic knowledge on practice tends to be indirect, and sometimes it takes a long time to materialize, and indeed the impact of most management research cannot be precisely attributed to the work of a single person or team. Furthermore, the new direction and expectation of governments and funding bodies regarding impact on practice might work against some of the basic principles of academia, not least academic freedom itself as a cornerstone of the profession. Arising from this, we call for a reconsideration of the formal requirements of further responsibility and pressure on academics. In making this call, we do not argue against engagement, involvement, and collaboration with industry, or knowledge implementation for organizations, but offer a view on what may be an appropriate expectation set from academe.
Baruch, Yehuda
25b89777-def4-4958-afdc-0ceab43efe8a
Budhwar, Pawan S.
bd4470c7-2df7-456e-98c7-af87371ecf7d
Baruch, Yehuda
25b89777-def4-4958-afdc-0ceab43efe8a
Budhwar, Pawan S.
bd4470c7-2df7-456e-98c7-af87371ecf7d
Baruch, Yehuda and Budhwar, Pawan S.
(2026)
Impact and management studies: why making practical impact is not a core academic expectation.
European Management Review.
(doi:10.1111/emre.70051).
Abstract
Lately, a new set of expectations is being formed for academics by various stakeholders, that is, to generate “impact” on practice, in addition to their main roles of conducting research, making academic contributions, and teaching. We challenge the legitimacy of this expectation. Further, we argue that there should be major differences between primary and secondary impact. The impact of new academic knowledge on practice tends to be indirect, and sometimes it takes a long time to materialize, and indeed the impact of most management research cannot be precisely attributed to the work of a single person or team. Furthermore, the new direction and expectation of governments and funding bodies regarding impact on practice might work against some of the basic principles of academia, not least academic freedom itself as a cornerstone of the profession. Arising from this, we call for a reconsideration of the formal requirements of further responsibility and pressure on academics. In making this call, we do not argue against engagement, involvement, and collaboration with industry, or knowledge implementation for organizations, but offer a view on what may be an appropriate expectation set from academe.
Text
Baruch Budhwar Impact as accepted EMR 2026 with title
- Accepted Manuscript
Restricted to Repository staff only until 10 January 2028.
Request a copy
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 14 December 2025
e-pub ahead of print date: 10 January 2026
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 508039
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/508039
ISSN: 1740-4754
PURE UUID: 2afa8e16-432d-49f1-bd8e-b3ccbe0d592c
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 12 Jan 2026 17:40
Last modified: 13 Jan 2026 02:48
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Pawan S. Budhwar
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
