Academia 2.0: Challenges of communication, impact & relevance
29 - 30 April 2014, The University of Manchester
EVALUATION RESULTS
Number of attendees: 30
Average number of years since completing PhD: Two years
Universities:







The University of Manchester
University of Leeds
Manchester Metropolitan University
University of Sheffield
London School of Economics
Open University
University of Coventry
Departments:
 Politics
 Sociology
 Business School
 Education
 Development Studies
 English
 Museology
 Archaeology
 Classic and Ancient History
Current academic positions:
 Postdoctoral Research Fellow (Marie Curie, ESRC Future Leader, Leverhulme)
 Lecturer
 Research Assistant/Associate/Fellow
 Teaching Assistant
 Visiting Researcher
 PhD student
1
What participants enjoyed most about the conference (top three):



Diversity and quality of speakers and their presentations
Themes for the different sessions
Panels on “Impact” and “Relevance” in particular
“The conference was dynamic, highly informative and inspiring, as well as being well-organised and structured. I
attended all the sessions on the first day and found each session stimulating and helpful.
Talks that presented specific details of past and current research were especially effective and interesting; in
particular, those presentations by Stephanie Barrientos, Martin Scott, Jane Tate, Yaron Matras, Uma Kothari and
Cecilia Wong. I was impressed by these speakers’ energy, thoughtfulness and passion (not what I was expecting
from presentations on ‘impact’). Related to this, I was struck by what almost became a recurring motif
throughout the day – the importance of relying on integrity and passion when undertaking any research project.
A small point, but I very much liked the length of the presentations and the brisk pace generally.”
What participants enjoyed least about the conference (top 3):



Panel on ‘Impact’: focused only on United Kingdom and not a wider academic community, e.g. the European
Union; focused on the long-term impact of research and bureaucracy which does not apply to early career
researchers; discussion was uncritical; and too much focus on impact at the expense of other issues
Lack of speakers from other parts of Humanities that are less focused on the Social Sciences
Speakers that did not keep to their time
“Some papers were irrelevant (homeworkers, the paper on religious approaches to relevance). For a conference
aimed at early career researchers, there was a strong emphasis on long-term impact and the bureaucracy behind
completing paperwork that simply does not apply to the context of the early career researchers who were the
main audience.”
On the conference meeting participants’ expectations (top three):



Lots of learning
Opportunity to network
Too much focus on Social Science and lack of representation of the Arts
“More than met my expectations - I learned a great deal about practical issues relating to impact/relevance and
also felt encouraged as an ECR.”
“I felt that there was too great a focus on the social sciences and that there was a distinct lack of representation
surrounding the Arts, in spite of the conference being advertised as representative of Humanities as a whole.”
2
How could the conference have been improved? (top five):





Include other fields in the Humanities where demonstrating ‘impact’ is more difficult
Sharing information/introductions of the participants
Ensuring speakers keep to their time
Having an earlier start or a full second day to the programme
Having working groups/discussion groups where participants can share their own experiences
“This isn’t a criticism but more of a comment – I would be interested to hear from more people in my field
(English, literary studies, cultural theory) for whom the impact agenda can be quite problematic.”
“There was room for questions specific to the presentations which was helpful, but maybe one or two discussion
groups would have been a nice addition also, to share and learn from personal concerns and experiences.”
3