LSE - Small Logo
LSE - Small Logo

Gemma Derrick

February 4th, 2025

Does hype really sell claims of research impact?

0 comments | 9 shares

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

Gemma Derrick

February 4th, 2025

Does hype really sell claims of research impact?

0 comments | 9 shares

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

After a recent paper indicated the level of hype language in research impact statements has become pervasive with negative consequences for research assessment, Gemma Derrick finds the use of ‘hype’ has significantly less impact than feared.


“…our work offers empirical evidence, in the form of academic rhetorical practices, which supports what may be a decline in engagement with values of integrity and objectivity.”
(Hyland & Feng, 2023)

Does using extravagant language, or ‘hype’ to describe research impacts really make that much of a difference?

In a recent and popular paper, Hyland & Feng were concerned about the demise of academic integrity in the promotion, and evaluation of Impact, as evidenced by “instances of language promoting any aspect of research while recognizing a cline between modest and exaggerated promotion”. However, by taking for granted the power of these words in evaluator assessments, do they in turn run the risk of overhyping their effect?

To check, we studied a sample of over 4000 impact sections within ex-ante applications for funding made to the Research Council of Norway in the years 2018-2019 and 2022-2023. Since 2018, the impact section has been one of three essential components (Excellence, Impact and Implementation) of applications made for funding to the Research Council of Norway. We paired an analysis of the linguistic construction of the Impact sections, with panel observations of how evaluators reason between the claims made in the application, and the proposal score. The results reveal insights into how evaluators are able to digest and reason with and beyond ‘hyped’ claims made in the applications.

Hype language in academia, as defined in their paper, is the use of rhetoric designed to ‘sell’ their studies by using promotional language to glamorise, publicise, embellish and/or exaggerate aspects of their research. However, the exact definition of hype in each of these categories is highly subjective.

Our own research showed that applicants do ‘hype’ their impact claims by using a rhetorical device we identified as a ‘inspiration’ claim. The inspiration claim is a linguistic or otherwise illustrative tool that evoked a wider, non-academic relevance to the project that extended beyond claims on knowledge or scientific novelty. It is this section that is most vulnerable to the use of ‘hype’ and the of hype-phrases, rather than hype-words, to illicit an emotive reaction to the potential of the research make an impact beyond the research community.

Whereas this language might be considered hype in the transmission of scientific information, it may be perfectly acceptable in the communication of scientific information for societal gain.

For example, phrases such as “Challenges related to elder care are a global concern in the context of ageing societies”, linked hype words (“global”) with larger, societal challenges or need (“in the context of ageing societies”), would normally be considered as ‘hype’ and, by merit of being used to glamorise, publicise, embellish or exaggerate aspects of research for competitive advantage.

However, the intention of the applicant should also be considered. Whereas this language might be considered hype in the transmission of scientific information, it may be perfectly acceptable in the communication of scientific information for societal gain. Communicating the societal impact, especially in its ex-ante form, is a means of science communication and therefore linked to notions of accountability to the public. Its purpose is therefore persuasive, to provide a justification for investment to an audience with different criteria.

Another characteristic of impact claims that are vulnerable to the use of hype included those focused on making ‘promises’, which disregarded any aspect of ‘risk’ or ‘uncertainty’ in achieving impact in their claims. These promises were usually fanciful, or ‘ideal’ in nature and neglected a consideration of impact as a sum of productive interactions on a pathway to a societal outcome. In these sections, the needs of the user/stakeholder from the research are ‘assumed’, rather than considered as part of a long co-constructive or participatory research process.

For example, expectations of a need were claimed such as “We would expect insights garnered from the project to be in high demand, not least after government changes”, or relevance of expected outcomes assumed; “Findings are thus particularly relevant for the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities (KS), the Association of NGOs in Norway that promotes and facilitates voluntary work in Norway”. Any erroneous use of ‘hype’ was in these sections mitigated by the presence, or absence of qualifiers that grounded the inspirations made in the application. The presence of qualifiers acted to increase the credibility of the application and thereby overall score assigned by the panel. In contrast, the absence of a qualifier decreased the credibility and thus score. The presence of hype in the Inspiration or Promise did little to increase or otherwise affect the credibility and thus the score of the proposal.

As one panel demurred: “this impact is crazy” leading to a downgrading of the application.

Our analysis also paired the analysis of the linguistic components with observations of panel discussions around the impact sections. Contrary to fears, our results showed evaluators were easily able to identify instances of hype. As one panel demurred: “this impact is crazy” leading to a downgrading of the application. Indeed, across all panels, over-promotion (hype) or excessive name dropping in applications was noted as “grating” and lowered the credibility and ultimately the impact score of the proposal.
The perceived benefit associated with the use of hype therefore appears to be negated during the evaluation process. At least when it comes to impact, hype has no or negligible competitive advantage. In short, evaluators are aware of erroneous uses of hype, such that its use can negate any benefits. Afterall, the majority of cases evaluators are also academics themselves, if they participate in the use of such rhetorical language, then it stands to reason that they are well positioned to maintain a necessary level of skepticism.

A question remains. Where does the unnecessary use of ‘hype’ meet creative license to communicate applicant passion for research? Stating that ‘sensation and manufactured excitement’ has replaced what otherwise would be normal reflections of merit and scholarship characteristic of scientific impartiality is one thing, but communicating genuine passion as credibility in the intentions of the researcher if funded, is quite another. All studies decrying the use of hype in research be it grant applications, research articles or research media releases, fail in the causality of assuming the intention of the applicant; to be generally competitive, or to mislead and misrepresent the integrity and/or potential of the research.

researchers-cum-evaluators are not deaf to hype as a persuasive tool and are able to mitigate its use because they too are experienced in hype themselves.

The use of hype might have become normalised in an increasingly competitive academic landscape, and applicants might feel that they need to use hype to gain attention. However, this is not evidenced by an increase in its use alone, especially without a comparison. Hype has a community function in that it keeps the evaluators engaged, or even perhaps awake. Peer reviewing, by and large, is a thankless task that academics normally complete beyond what they are contracted to do by their direct employer. It can be time consuming and, with the length of applications increasing, involve somewhat monotonous reading and judgements that are difficult in the absence of hype.

I am sure that the authors are not suggesting that research go boring, but more thought about the purpose and audience of the written word is needed. One should also not forget that researchers-cum-evaluators are not deaf to hype as a persuasive tool and are able to mitigate its use because they too are experienced in hype themselves. The use of hype for impact, therefore, is not an avenue of unfairness or an indicator of the lack of integrity, but could more accurately be seen as a tool used to garner greater public support for funding research and perhaps one for keeping evaluators awake where the prospect of evaluating a proposal free from hype is otherwise unbearable.


The content generated on this blog is for information purposes only. This Article gives the views and opinions of the authors and does not reflect the views and opinions of the Impact of Social Science blog (the blog), nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Please review our comments policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.

Image credit: Marko Aliaksandr on Shutterstock.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

About the author

Gemma Derrick

Gemma Derrick is a professor at the University of Bristol's School of Education. Her research focuses on research on research, researcher behaviour and the effect of national audit frameworks, including but not restricted to the UK’s Research Excellence Framework and similar frameworks in other countries.

Posted In: Featured | Impact | REF2029 | Research evaluation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *