Does impact become more valuable when it extends across a larger geographical area?
In Local reach, global significance? The politics of scale and the competing imaginaries of the UK research impact agenda, Justyna Bandola-Gill explores the complicated relationship between reach, significance and geographical scale within the UK research impact agenda.
Drawing on qualitative research with academics, research managers and policymakers across two research-intensive universities, Bandola-Gill argues that institutional interpretations can create an informal hierarchy in which national and international impact are perceived as more prestigious than locally focused impact.
This is not what the formal REF guidance says. The REF 2021 guidance explicitly states that reach does not refer specifically to geographical scale. Impact within one UK region could be judged outstanding, while international reach does not necessarily make an impact outstanding.
The paper introduces the concept of “scalecraft” to describe how scale is constructed, negotiated and sometimes strategically reframed. Scale is therefore not simply an inherent characteristic of impact: it is also shaped by institutional cultures and assumptions about what valuable impact looks like.
What does this mean in practice?
For researchers and impact professionals, the paper offers a useful reminder not to use geographical scale as shorthand for the quality or value of impact.
When developing or assessing impact, we should consider:
- Who has experienced change, and how significant was that change for them?
- Does the scale of the impact make sense in relation to the research and its intended research users?
- Are institutional expectations encouraging researchers to prioritise geographical breadth over depth, relevance or meaningful local relationships?
The paper is based on qualitative research across two sites, so it offers a conceptual lens rather than a comprehensive picture of practice across the sector. It would be valuable to explore how these ideas are reflected across the wider body of REF impact case studies.
The takeaway: local impact is not inherently less significant. What matters is the nature and extent of the change, who experiences it and the quality of the evidence – not whether it crosses a national border.
