Structural Inequalities in External Engagement and Capital Generation
The institutionalisation of impact evaluation within national research assessment frameworks exposes a critical structural tension between aspirational policy narratives and the daily realities of early-career academic labour. While formal evaluation frameworks conceptualise societal and economic impact as positive outcomes of rigorous scholarship (Greenhalgh et al., 2016), the institutional apparatus designed to capture these metrics frequently generates systemic distortion and hyper-competition. As Moore et al. (2017) argue, the pervasive rhetoric of excellence operates primarily as a linguistic interchange mechanism that intensifies competition and homophily rather than fostering sound research capacity. In practical terms, this performance of excellence disproportionately penalises emerging scholars who lack the institutional standing and professional networks required to demonstrate immediate, verifiable external reach. This structural vulnerability is further illuminated by empirical syntheses of knowledge transfer. Perkmann et al. (2020) demonstrate that external academic engagement—including contract research, consulting, and formal partnerships—is overwhelmingly concentrated among senior, male, and commercially experienced researchers. When universities align internal promotion criteria with the demands of national evaluation systems like the Research Excellence Framework, they directly reward established social capital that non-tenured academics have had neither the time nor the institutional patronage to accumulate. Consequently, while evaluative frameworks theoretically aim to document diverse societal benefits, their operational execution inside universities entrenches systemic labour stratification, diverting resources toward senior profiles while marginalising the capacity-building efforts essential for sustainable early-career development.