Political Theory and the Impact Agenda Ben Holland University of Nottingham In May 2013, Political Studies Review dedicated a special issue to the subject of the relevance and impact of political studies. The immediate impetus to this initiative was, of course, the imminent Research Excellence Framework (REF). For the first time in the periodic assessments of research that allocate direct funding to British universities, 20 per cent of a unit’s final score would depend on the assessors’ judgement about the ‘reach and significance’ of the impact of the research emanating from it (REF, 2014), with ‘impact’ understood in terms of ‘any social, economic or cultural impact or benefit beyond academia that has taken place during the assessment period’ (REF, 2011, p. 1). The special issue was organised by Matthew Flinders and Peter John. Their contribu- tions set the tone for the symposium. Flinders (2013, p. 163) argued that the REF’s emphasis on impact ought to be seen as an ‘opportunity’ for the discipline, forcing it ‘to showcase exactly why the study of politics matters, to forge a deeper and more reflective model of scholarship, to redefine the boundaries of the discipline and to increase the leverage position of the discipline vis-à-vis external research funders’. John (2013) main- tained that scholars of politics should carry on doing what they are doing already, because there are plenty of good political journalists and policy makers who are hungry for new ideas, and who are much better at translating such ideas for general or policy-making audiences. ‘To be craven to the practitioner world makes academics too similar to other knowledge providers so they cannot claim comparative advantage. In this way, academics are bound to be less influential as politicians and policy makers can get that kind of expertise more easily elsewhere’ (John, 2013, p. 172). On this, however, they both agreed: scholars of politics ought to pursue work that has ‘impact’ beyond academia, whatever they do to disseminate and promote it. Other contributors endorsed that shared view. Copious circumstantial evidence has amounted that the paper that did most to raise the hackles of readers was Thom Brooks’ ‘In Defence of Political Theory: Impact and Opportunities’. Brooks (2013, p. 214) argued that the impact agenda ‘is something that all political theorists would do well to embrace’. Such an engagement would, Brooks held, help to raise the public standing of political theory. Further, ‘rich conceptual analysis’ and ‘analytical rigour’ can help to ‘illuminate the grammar of our political understanding’ and show how public policy ‘might be improved’ (Brooks, 2013, p. 211). And it just is a fact of the matter that the best of political theory has been impactful. Think, Brooks said, of Onora O’Neill’s work on autonomy and bioethics; Bhikhu Parekh’s on multiculturalism; Will Hutton’s on the stakeholding society; Stephen Gardiner’s on carbon trading; and Martha Nussbaum’s on gay rights. The list goes on. This symposium brings together responses to Brooks’ argument from three major political theorists, to whom Brooks then replies. Andrew Vincent is a student of political POLITICAL STUDIES REVIEW: 2015 VOL 13, 471–473 doi: 10.1111/1478-9302.12097 © 2015 The Author. Political Studies Review © 2015 Political Studies Association