Rethinking Research Assessment and Impact | UTU Avoimen tieteen kiihdyttämö

A special episode of our “Wow, What an Impact!” podcast (Vau, mikä vaikutus!) “How to build a successful impact strategy?” was aired on 19.1.2026. In the episode we talked about how research quality and impact can be assessed with our guest, Dr Giovanna Lima, Programme Manager of DORA. Listen the episode here.

Research impact is not just about ticking boxes or counting outputs. Instead, it is about connecting scientific knowledge with societal knowledge, recognising that different forms of knowledge complement each other and can jointly benefit society. This perspective challenges many traditional academic practices. While universities increasingly emphasise societal impact in their mission statements, evaluation systems often continue to reward narrow indicators, such as publication counts or journal-based metrics. As Giovanna points out in the episode, this misalignment sends mixed signals to researchers: impact is encouraged rhetorically, but rarely recognised in practice.

What is DORA – and why does it matter?

DORA, the Declaration on Research Assessment, was launched in 2012 during the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology in San Francisco to address long-standing problems in how research and researchers are evaluated. It has become a worldwide initiative covering all scholarly disciplines and all key stakeholders including funders, publishers, professional societies, institutions, and researchers.

Research assessment influences many everyday decisions in academia – from hiring and promotion to funding and publishing. DORA argues that these decisions should be based on the quality and relevance of research, rather than on simplistic proxies such as journal impact factors. Today, thousands of organisations worldwide have signed DORA, and its principles have inspired broader initiatives. For example, building on momentum created by DORA and others, and seeing the need for a community of research organizations engaged in assessment reform, a group came together to develop the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment (ARRA) and formed the CoARA, the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment, in 2022.

Implementation is the real challenge

Signing DORA is an important symbolic step, but real change happens during implementation. As Giovanna notes, institutions start from very different points: some are already experimenting with new assessment approaches, while others are at the beginning of the conversation.

DORA supports implementation by:

convening networks and peer learning spaces
developing practical tools and case studies
offering small community grants
acting as a “lighthouse” by showcasing diverse pathways forward

Crucially, DORA avoids one-size-fits-all solutions. What works in a small technical university may look very different from what works in a large, comprehensive institution.

Can research impact be assessed responsibly?

Assessing societal impact remains one of the most contested issues in research evaluation. Giovanna raises a fundamental question: should impact primarily be assessed, or should it be enabled, recognised, and communicated?

If impact is assessed, key questions follow:

At what level (individual, project, department, institution)?
What exactly is being assessed (outputs, processes, skills, relationships)?
Over what time frame?

Currently, the most widely accepted approach is evidence-based narrative assessment. Narratives make it possible to reflect the complexity, temporality, and context-dependence of impact – while still grounding claims in concrete evidence. This helps avoid reducing impact to PR exercises or misleading numerical indicators.

At the same time, Giovanna warns against new “flashy” tools that promise easy impact measurement solutions. Without a clear value base and careful design, they risk repeating the same mistakes made in traditional research assessment.

Rather than starting with indicators, universities should first focus on impact strategies. Successful strategies are:

Co-created with internal and external communities
Context-sensitive, reflecting the institution’s maturity and mission
Coherent, aligned with assessment, communication, teaching, and leadership
Adequately resourced, recognising institutional responsibility rather than placing the burden solely on researchers

Above all, responsible impact work requires reflection, dialogue, and humility – qualities that align closely with the core values of open science.

Laura Niemi ja Outi Nurmela

Kirjoittajat työskentelevät kehittämisasiantuntijoina Turun yliopiston Tutkimusedellytykset –yksikössä.

Julkaisun tiedot: 1/2026, Open Up!-blogi, ISSN 2814-8967