Educational Philosophy and Theory

Incorporating ACCESS

ISSN: 0013-1857 (Print) 1469-5812 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rept20

Unpacking ontological security: A decolonial

reading of scholarly impact

Riyad A. Shahjahan & Anne E. Wagner

To cite this article: Riyad A. Shahjahan & Anne E. Wagner (2018): Unpacking ontological
security: A decolonial reading of scholarly impact, Educational Philosophy and Theory, DOI:
10.1080/00131857.2018.1454308

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1454308

Published online: 22 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rept20
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1454308

Unpacking ontological security: A decolonial reading of scholarly

impact
Riyad A. Shahjahana and Anne E. Wagnerb
a
Department of Educational Administration, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA; bDepartment of Social
Work, Nipissing University, North Bay, Canada

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Despite the growing debate about scholarly impact, an analysis of the onto- Scholarly impact; impact
epistemic grammar underlying impact has remained absent. By taking a metrics; onto-epistemic
different analytical approach to examining impact, we interrogate the grammar; coloniality; Eastern
concept through the lens of decolonial thought. We offer an empathetic ontologies; Sūnyatā
review of the impact scholarship and illuminate the limits of the modern
imaginary that circumscribe critiques of impact in the literature, making
visible the Eurocentric and provincial horizons of modern reason underlying
these critiques and impact in general. Drawing on Śūnyatā ontological
perspective, we seek to articulate from modernity imaginary’s edges and
suggest imagining and being otherwise. We argue that the question of
scholarly impact is intimately structured by and connected to the modern
subject’s desire for ontological security.

Introduction
A scholar’s impact has become a new tsunami in the academic world, circulating throughout academic,
policy, and administrative circles. Often equated with influence and relevance, the impact of one’s schol-
arly work has come under scrutiny in recent years both inside and outside the academy (Benneworth,
2015; Watermeyer, 2014). Conceptualizations of impact range from citation counts, to practitioner
event invitations, to media visibility, to social media audience (e.g. twitter followers) (Aguinis, Shapiro,
Antonacopoulou, & Cummings, 2014). Despite its significance, however, the fundamental nature of
impact has been left undertheorized in academic critiques of impact.
The nature of impact is important to theorize for several reasons. First, the emphasis on academic
accountability and visibility has never been greater than it is today. Second, as academics, we are asked
to be more critically self-reflexive and engaged with stakeholders across our disciplines, institutions
and national borders (Watermeyer, 2014). Third, we need to unpack the nature of impact because it
garners a new type of academic capital. Finally and most importantly, before we can articulate impact,
we need to understand the process and nature of impact. In short, we need to theorize impact in order
to understand the processes that lead us to reify impact as a marker of academic worth—if it indeed
makes a difference (Gardner, Holmes, & Leitch, 2008; Watermeyer, 2014).
Amid the growing debate about scholarly impact, many have critiqued the narrow definitions
of impact and the adverse effects on knowledge production inside/outside the academy (Aguinis,
Suarez-Gonzalez, Lannelongue, & Joo, 2012; Smith, 2006). Others suggest expanding the definitions of

CONTACT  Riyad A. Shahjahan  shahja95@msu.edu

© 2018 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia
2    R. A. SHAHJAHAN AND A. E. WAGNER

impact by considering various stakeholders, contexts, and alternative measures (Gardner et al., 2008;
McCormack, 2011). Within this debate, we offer a critique of these standard critiques of scholarly impact
by probing the modern onto—epistemic grammar—a grammar that defines what is real, ideal, desirable
and knowable (see Shahjahan, Ramirez & Andreotti, 2017; Stein, Hunt, Suša, & Andreotti, 2017)—under-
lying the notions of impact that have remained untheorized.
We take a different analytical approach to examining impact, conceptualizing it within the context
of decolonial thought. Decoloniality is a political and pedagogical project seeking to disrupt coloni-
ality, which refers to an ongoing logic of domination underlying imperial powers (whether Spanish,
Portuguese, British, and, later on, American) and a Eurocentric process of expansion of modes of know-
ing, being, and representation (Mignolo, 2011). Informed by decoloniality, we have two aims in this
article. We first attempt to illuminate the limits of the modern imaginary informing existing critiques
of scholarly impact in the literature, foregrounding the Eurocentric provincial horizons of modern rea-
son underlying both of these critiques and impact itself. Second, drawing on a Śūnyatā ontological
perspective we seek to articulate from the edges of modern imaginary and suggest imagining and
being a human being otherwise. As such, the article is structured to explore the following questions:

(1) How has ‘impact’ been already problematized? What is normalized within these
problematizations?
(2) Given the dominance of certain onto-epistemic grammars, how can we imagine ‘impact’ oth-
erwise? Would ‘impact’ even exist?

Seeking to respond to these two questions, we will first provide a brief primer of the dominant
onto-epistemic grammar that structures the critique of ‘impact’. We then provide an empathetic review
of scholarship on impact in order to explore the limits of existing critiques. We argue that the question
of scholarly impact is intimately structured by and connected to the modern subject’s desire for onto-
logical security—an anthropocentric structured way of being that embodies worthiness by feeling a
sense of control and certainty over one’s world.
Finally, drawing on Śūnyatā ontological perspective we offer our reflections and invite readers to
sit with the discomfort of the limits of our imaginary. Rather than proposing ‘solutions’ or reinforcing
a binary of colonial/decolonial approaches, our goal is to shift the body politics and geopolitics of
knowledge away from Eurocentrism by centering often marginalized Eastern ontologies. We do this
by mobilizing teachings from a Śūnyatā perspective—as expressed by Japanese philosopher Toshihiko
Izutsu (2008)—that provides an ontological mirror to exploring our attachments to onto-epistemic
structures reflected in modern institutions that restrict our possibilities for imagining otherwise. A
Śūnyatā perspective is particularly useful for scholarly impact debates because it illuminates the limi-
tations to self-sufficient realities, cognitive language functions, linear causality, and visible elements of
reality. Our goal is to render such boundaries visible. We suggest that demonstrating ‘impact’ is perhaps
a distraction and a product of restlessness in our quest for ontological security that helps to validate
us scholars as experts.

The onto-epistemic grammar underlying ontological security

In this section, we illuminate the threads of onto-epistemic grammar underlying ontological security
which will help us unpack the notion of ‘impact’ throughout the rest of the article. At the heart of the
‘impact’ debate we suggest a lurking colonialist modern subject seeking ontological security which is
a fantasy. In the context of settlers land ownership claims in colonial contexts, Mackey (2014) suggests
that this ontological security was tied to certainty which ‘emerges from a set of stories that are grounded
in delusions of entitlement…They are socially embedded, unconscious expectations of how the world
will work to reaffirm social locations, perceptions, and benefits of privilege’ (p. 242, as cited in Stein et al.,
2017). As many have noted, colonial conquerors and/or settlers were infused with the ideas of rationality
and control that provided security and futurity in unknown territories (Dussel, 1985; Maldonado-Torres,
 EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY   3

2007). Desiring ontological security, an egotistical structured way of being underpins the intimate link
between ‘rational’ and ‘conquering self’ and has no room for contradictions, complexity, or paradoxes
(Andreotti, 2016; Wynter, 2003). This fantasy of ontological security is informed by an onto-epistemic
grammar consisting of anthropocentrism, naive realism, and linearity of time.
The anthropocentric subject believes himself to be a master of the universe which he can tame with
knowledge. Anthropocentric reasoning positions humans as separate from nature, which gives him
the mandate to own, manage, exploit and control (Shiva, 1995). As such, he applies ‘universal reason’
by deploying ‘the foundation’s timeless categories, measurements, and classifications to predict and
control the world’ (Stein et al., 2017, p. 74). Intimately tied to this anthropocentrism is also causality and
the possibility of knowledge of the external world. To put it differently, in order to manage the world
and reach a desired outcome, the modern subject needs a ‘control gaze’ to bring order to the way we
conceptualize the world (Shahjahan, 2011; Deleuze, 1992). From this perspective of anthropocentric
causality, it is necessary to systematize everything, reducing them to manageable questions and sub-
jects, in order to find some causal linkages between them, and then intervene. In short, informing the
desire for ontological security is a human-centered paradigm of absolute knowability and certainty
that also informs the current debate about scholarly impact.
Naive realism plays an important role in this onto-epistemic grammar in terms of what is real,
knowable, and meaningful. Nakagawa (2000) suggests that dominant Western paradigms of knowl-
edge assume a reality that lies at the empirical world of myriad things. This is the level of naive
realism—a paradigm of knowledge whereby we perceive things as objective, separate, discrete,
tangible and solid entities. As such, empiricism, or sense perception, becomes the legitimate source
of knowledge about the external world. Tied to this naive realist worldview is pragmatism which
suggests that ‘meaning must always relate to something observable that happens as a result of
something we do’ (Fonseka, 2011); hence the term ‘pragmatism’ which derives from the Greek word
for deed or action. Empiricism and pragmatism is tied to anthropocentric worldview whereby there
is a strong belief that as human beings we are in control, we can bend the world to our desires, and
‘observe’ the changes we desire. As we will demonstrate, these ideas pervade the scholarly impact
discourse, whereby scholarly work is considered impactful if it can show an ‘observable’ change in
the human social world.
Such an onto-epistemic grammar is finally embedded in the linearity of time that assumes our
desirable world is attainable in the future. Progress here is seen as a cumulative straight line from past,
present, to future. As such, the modernist subject judges others according to a yardstick represent-
ing himself as being in the present of (linear) time and regards humanity on a monocultural path of
evolution (Andreotti, 2016). This human-centered way of knowing emboldens his ability to plan and
engineer the future that he can already imagine. Such linearity informs enlightenment ideas of progress
that our actions will ‘make progress’ in the world, improve current conditions, and make the world a
better place (i.e. enlightenment notions of history) (Andreotti, 2016). In this article, we will draw on
these above threads of onto-epistemic grammar underlying ontological security to unpack the notion
of scholarly ‘impact’.

How can impact be conceptualized?

In the following sections, we will illuminate how scholarly ‘impact’ debates reproduce key aspects
of ontological security (Stein et al., 2017), and the questions that remain. These critiques can be
categorized within four overriding questions: (1) What is the gold standard for conceptualizing
impact and what are its limitations? (2) What are the adverse effects of the gold standards on
knowledge production? (3) How can we expand ‘impact’ to include various dissemination platforms
and stakeholders? (4) How do current impact standards translate across contexts? What are some
alternatives?
4    R. A. SHAHJAHAN AND A. E. WAGNER

(1) What is the gold standard for conceptualizing impact and what are its limitations?
A considerable scholarship has engaged in debates across an array of disciplines regarding assessment
and evaluation metrics of research, designed to assess ‘scholarly impact’. It is generally agreed that
publishing and citations in top tier journals are considered the gold standard in the context of tenure
and promotion processes, despite the acknowledgement of the detrimental impact of gatekeeping
that is prevalent in these arenas (Wagner & Yee, 2011; Osei-Kofi, 2012). Given the pressure to distinguish
one’s research as having an impact, many academics continue to target their research efforts at such
outlets (Aguinis et al., 2012). As these measures are also often used in funding decisions, there has been
considerable concern about how the metrics used may have a direct impact on the types and focus of
research that is produced (Aguinis et al., 2014; Weller, 2014; Wouters & Costas, 2012).
Many have criticized this dominant approach to measuring ‘impact’ through citations. Some criticize
standardized metrics as perpetuating academic insularity through scholars citing each other within
their own disciplines, and increasing their citation index while simultaneously engaging a very select
community and assessing work based on ‘an incestuous closed loop’ (Aguinis et al., 2012, p. 106). Smith
(2010) also suggests that bibliometric measures regulate academic life and ‘promote a self-interested
individualism’ (p. 47). Furthermore, Weller (2014) outlined some of the following limitations of biblio-
metrics as an impact measure, noting, that (a) citations do not measure readership and do not account
for the impact on non-academic audiences; (b) publication processes are slow and there is a time
lag in the citation of a publication; (c) publication practices and channels vary across disciplines and
favoring of specific fields in the citation databases coverage; and (d) citation behavior may not always
be exact (p. 3). As impact metrics become enshrined in academic regimes of assessment, the volume
of contestations continue to develop, documenting the limitations of using quantitative measures of
citations as the basis of measuring impact.
Many suggest that bibliometric impact measures render research not grounded in dominant episte-
mologies as less visible and valuable. For instance, mainstream highly ranked journals primarily publish
research from dominant epistemological perspectives, thereby exerting subtle influences on the types
of research that are encouraged (Baffoe, Asimeng-Boahene, & Ogbuagu, 2014). While these critiques
are worthwhile, they still miss the mark in highlighting the underlying onto-epistemic grammar of
impact narratives/measures that seeks futurity and security, and informed by pragmatism in knowledge
production. What is not captured is the possibilities of knowledge that may be valuable yet not have
an immediate, visible influence in the world. The effects of these practices have far reaching conse-
quences, as we explore next.

(2) What are the adverse effects of the gold standard on knowledge production?
It has been acknowledged that conceptualizations of impact that value only writing disseminated
through peer review publications de facto devalues the work of those whose scholarship does not
approximate this norm, a group consisting overwhelmingly of non-dominant scholars. These leads to
an obvious tension as scholars are recruited from diverse backgrounds to ostensibly build connections
with communities from which they are assumed to be a representative but are then subjected to these
dominant assessment practices (Smith, 2006; Wagner & Yee, 2011). The result is that many scholars from
marginalized groups find their community-based research not captured in contemporary metrics, thus
they are ultimately at a disadvantage when their productivity is being assessed through conventional
institutional processes. As this knowledge is not easily measured by conventional standards, it is also
unlikely to attract large sums of research funding (Osei-Kofi, 2012, p. 234). The result is a blurring of
‘the distinction between excellence in research’ and the ‘impacts of this excellence’ (Watermeyer, 2014,
p. 364). As Watermeyer’s (2014) study with research directors discovered, most respondents spoke of
their publications as primary evidence of their impacts, thereby obscuring any other indicators of the
significance of their work.
 EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY   5

Another body of scholarship that approaches the critique of metrics emanates from those involved
in what is commonly referred to as applied disciplines or ‘engaged scholarship’ or action research (Evans,
2016; Gibbons, 2008; McCormack, 2011). Applied disciplines, such as nursing, have advocated moving
beyond traditional linear metrics to an approach of ‘engaged scholarship’, which acknowledges the value
of engaging both academics and practitioners. Although such forms of impact are more challenging
to quantify, many have acknowledged the importance of conducting research that is meaningful to
practitioners (McCormack, 2011). Further, the significance of engaging practice communities as co-pro-
ducers of knowledge has been highlighted as an aspect of research that should be captured in impact
metrics (Gibbons, 2008; Van de Ven, 2007).
Another vocal critique has emerged from those engaged in activist or politically engaged scholar-
ship. Sudbury and Okazawa-Rey (2009) argue that the false division perpetuated between activism and
scholarship is designed to maintain the epistemological status quo and differentially impacts those
not from dominant groups, based on race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and national
origin. Acknowledging that such research tends to be more labor intensive and generally does not
produce visible results in the short term, a more encompassing conceptualization, would be more useful
for action research approaches that tackle issues such as racism or sexism, for which demonstrating
impact is not as straightforward. Until metrics are designed to account for such work, its significance
will remain largely unacknowledged, thereby rendering it a liability for building an academic career.
Hence, academics are subtly encouraged to become academic entrepreneurs and pursue topics likely
to receive large external grants and build their careers, at the expense of retreating from larger public
debates and fully engaging with urgent social issues (Giroux, 2004).
These approaches that advocate for ‘soft reform’ (i.e. inclusion of diverse ways of knowing such as
practitioner or community-based work) (Andreotti, Stein, Ahenakew, & Hunt, 2015) in impact measures
are significant and acknowledge the limitations of current understandings of impact. We suggest, how-
ever, that even those that advocate institutional transformation do not go far enough to challenge the
onto-epistemic grammar informing impact measures in the first place. Seeking to have their ‘othered’
knowledge systems become visible, these critiques inadvertently perpetuate the same onto-epistemic
grammars that render their work invisible in the first place (Shahjahan et al., 2017). The question of prag-
matism still pervades these reforms. As they remain focused on the visibility of their work, they continue
to seek a ‘change’ in the social world based on their actions. This continued grounding in ontological
security and belief that change must be immediately discernible, limits the parameters of scholarly work.
Overall, these critiques implicitly accept the underlying premise that academic recognition is an impor-
tant goal of knowledge creation. How we might challenge such conceptualizations is our next focus.

(3) How can we expand ‘impact’ to include various dissemination platforms and
stakeholders?
Acknowledging the limitations of current conceptualizations of impact, many advocate the develop-
ment of more expansive indicators. There have been calls to reconceptualize metrics to capture the
emerging technological landscape that facilitates swifter research dissemination. The basis of this cri-
tique is that metrics should expand to encompass engagement with research through outlets such as
Twitter, blog posts, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn and an ever-expanding array of social media outlets.
Such indicators provide equally valuable evidence of the extent to which research is being engaged
beyond conventional outlets. Additionally, this captures impact beyond traditionally narrowly defined
audiences of fellow academics (Aguinis et al., 2012, 2014; Piwowar, 2013). These critics suggest concep-
tualizing ‘readership’ to include electronic bookmarking and number of downloads, thus adding layers
that will enhance impact assessments (Kolowich, 2010; Weller, 2014). Rather than replacing citation
indicators, they argue such measures may add layers of data that will enhance impact assessments.
These new virtual ‘impact’ regimes are not without complications, however, and have spawned dis-
cussions about developing valid and reliable measures. Although social media indicators may provide
a swifter means of assessing engagement, not all indicators are equally significant. Wouters and Costas
6    R. A. SHAHJAHAN AND A. E. WAGNER

(2012) caution of the need to develop a system for contextualizing measures, in order to systematize
their use and make them meaningful. Otherwise such measures may be plagued by inherent biases of
search engines that do not discern the quality of sources (Van Dijck, 2010) and frequency of citations
may not reflect the quality of the research, rather signaling the extent to which the topic captured
the attention of the media. As Gorard (2008) argues, poor quality research with high impact is more
problematic, as it can lead to insecure knowledge. Loosening rights of control, claims of ownership and
an ability to track the destination of research—where it was accessed and modified by multiple inter-
mediaries and users—has also been a concern, as academics risk having their research disseminated
in ways that misrepresent the findings (Watermeyer, 2014, pp. 373–374).
Some scholars also raise concerns about how ‘impact’ can be expanded to include effects of schol-
arship on the social human world, particularly policy-makers and practitioners. Policy-makers want
‘solid’ evidence to help convince the public to their thinking or undermine any opposition (Gardner et
al., 2008). In the policy arena, impact is perceived as invitations to give evidence or advice in inquiries,
provide technical expertise to governments, and/or help in refining an intervention or development
of policy. According to Landry et al. (as cited in Gardner et al., 2008, p. 90), the research utilization pro-
cesses in the context of policy-makers can be viewed linearly in terms of: reception (research findings
are received by policy-makers), cognition (the research is read and understood), discussion (the research
is part of meeting discussion topics), reference (cited in internal documents), adoption (efforts are
made to use the research), and influence (research influences policy decisions). Scholars, however, have
problematized the linear fashion in which scholarly impact occurs in the policy arena. As Watermeyer
(2014) noted, the academic world has a very complicated relationship with the policy world and tends
to privilege particular types of scholars, particularly senior scholars, with wide social networks and
greater ‘visibility’ in policy circles. Such close ties could undermine the critical and objective stance
of researchers who may feel pressured to manipulate outcomes to please contractors (Watermeyer,
2014, p. 365). This raises ethical questions of how to talk critically yet constructively to power. Finally,
policy-makers may not heed research findings or research may subsequently be used in an instrumental
fashion by government agencies themselves (Watermeyer, 2016).
Practitioners are another key group of stakeholders of scholarly dissemination and many have
debated the role and the means by which knowledge can be transferred into the practitioner arena.
Linear appraisals of impact are necessarily limited in these contexts, as research is not always directly
applied, thereby not culminating in an improvement that can be readily captured by available metrics.
These linear narratives of impact have been critiqued as failing to consider the complexities of knowl-
edge production and knowledge transferring from one group to another. McCormack (2011) raises ques-
tions about the extent to which ‘impact can be assessed beyond that of citation and awareness levels’
(p. 114). Arguing that we need to challenge the traditional dichotomies between knowledge producer
and knowledge utilizers, she suggests that knowledge utilizers be included as part of the knowledge
production process. Hence, we need to redefine the role of knowledge producers and utilizers.
Similarly, Gardner et al. (2008) argue that we need to complicate this linear relationship between
knowledge production and knowledge utilization in the practitioner world, suggesting that the prob-
lems being engaged are often simply too complex and multifaceted to neatly fit into mainstream impact
metrics. One suggestion has been to reconceptualize impact, to acknowledge ‘soft indicators’ (p. 90) such
as ‘subjective, anecdotal or impressionistic data that allows potential impact to be identified through
reasonable interpretation of their strength and variety’ (Gardner et al., 2008, p. 98). Feminism has also
been interested in the ways in which knowledge is constructed and how this affects what comes to
be ‘known’ (Ropers-Huilman & Winters, 2011). Feminist scholars have highlighted the need to develop
measures more attuned to valuing ‘participatory approaches to the co-production of knowledge…that
occurs through a series of smaller transformative actions and reciprocal research relationships sustained
over time’ (Evans, 2016, p. 214). As currently configured, indicators of impact are unnecessarily limited
and biased toward impact that results in policy implications. Finally, some raise concerns about the
governance of impact, arguing that it is governed by ‘multifarious intermediaries’—actors who influence
how research is ultimately received by end-users (Watermeyer, 2014, p. 371). According to Watermeyer
 EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY   7

(2014), impact is governed by how research (a) enters public realms, (b) public/stakeholder dialogs, (c)
used, and (d) integrated (Watermeyer (2014).
Overall, this scholarship challenges us to expand notions of impact to various contexts and stake-
holders, beyond the academic profession. Furthermore, they raise concerns about linear appraisals of
impact that suggest a unmediated relationship between knowledge production and knowledge utiliz-
ers. Although many advocate expanding notions of ‘impact’ measures, they all remain grounded in a
pragmatic approach to knowledge production. Rather than advocating broad reaching change to the
structures of being underlying these reforms, these analyses primarily critique the existing system as
overly limiting and focus on tweaking the system. What is not interrogated is temporality and impact.
How do we consider the time lag in evidence production, and when do we measure impact? As such,
these discussions remain firmly rooted in modernity’s ways of producing knowledge and attempt to
fine-tune existing practices, rather than decrying the basic premise of the system and attempting to
re-imagine the entire project of knowledge production. Calls for pluralism focusing on issues of reliability
and validity do not challenge basic ideas of what constitutes knowledge, and thereby scholarly impact
(Lather, 2007). Further, all remain grounded in the premise that change must be immediately visible,
thereby maintaining the fantasy of ontological security. We wondered: how might the process of knowl-
edge production be transformed if we were to challenge the intellectual foreclosures by interrogating
the boundaries of what constitutes academic knowledge? What might a system look like that includes
ontologies that do not replicate existing paradigms (Shahjahan et al., 2017)? Would impact measurement
systems continue to exist? What forms of knowledge might be rendered visible by questioning these
fundamental assumptions (Lather, 2007)? This notion of seeking some form of ‘recognition’ by the same
onto-epistemic grammar highlights the modernity subjects seeking ontological security in the world.

(4) How do current impact standards translate across contexts? What are some alternatives?
Many have debated the question of what ‘impact’ could look like outside the academy. Beyond the
academy, impact is generally understood, as some form of action, particularly one’s analysis or findings
leading to some form of change or movement in the physical world of life outside the academy: ‘they
are observable phenomena which exist in the same way as physical objects or natural events’ (Lagier,
2003, p. 19). For instance, many conceptualize impact as influencing and working with key stakeholders
(e.g. practitioners and/or policy-makers, or communities). Impact is usually understood as evidence of
impact = identifying causal relationship between (a) research producer and (b) research user. Often,
impact here is understood as a linear relationship and simple correspondence between research dis-
semination and user utilization (Gardner et al., 2008). Yet, the conceptualization of ‘research user’ varies
(e.g. practitioner vs policy-maker).
Many scholars suggest devising different forms of evidence to demonstrate impact (e.g. Gardner et
al., 2008; McCormack, 2011). Such evidence ranges from citation in documents (in policy documents or
practitioner outlets), to user outcomes, and one’s visibility in policy/media circles (Aguinis et al., 2014).
User outcomes, particularly for practitioners would manifest in terms of changes in knowledge and
understanding, or attitudes/beliefs and changes in behavior (Walter et al., 2003, as cited in McCormack,
2011).
Visibility in policy/media/community/practitioner circles is another key variable for demonstrating
impact. Visibility in policy includes invitations to inquiries, expert witness involvement in high-profile
court cases, etc. (Aguinis et al., 2014). Media visibility manifests through the extent to which one’s
research findings are cited in media outlets, i.e. radio, television, national/local newspapers (Aguinis et
al., 2014). Recently social media presence has also been recognized as evidence of media visibility and
scholarly impact (Schnitzler, Davies, Ross, & Harris, 2016). As Stewart (2015) noted, twitter presence
can demonstrate an academic’s influence in the social world. ‘The higher the number of tweets, the
longer a profile was assumed to have been active, and the higher the ratio of followers to following ...
the more likely the person was to be perceived as influential’ (p. 298). Hence, even attracting passive
followers to your twitter posts has come to be accepted as a form of influence.
8    R. A. SHAHJAHAN AND A. E. WAGNER

Visibility in community and practitioner settings, in terms of publications and community presenta-
tions has also come to be accepted as an indication of impact beyond the academy. Finally, partner-
ships and collaborations in the form of strategic alliances with community organizations can be seen
as evidence of impact. What is not considered is the quality of such collaborative efforts, which may
have corrosive and diluting effects on academic professional practice, identity, and integrity of being
an academic (Watermeyer, 2014, p. 365).
Underlying these narratives of evidence is ‘observable’ phenomenon that fits in the dominant
onto-epistemic grammar. Impact is conceptualized as something that fits into a structured way of
knowing, where change is observable and thus measurable. Such causal relationships and ‘evidence’
are tied to naive realism thinking. Underlying these narratives of evidence are ‘sensorial data’ that fit in
the dominant onto-epistemic grammar and result in pressure to demonstrate measurable outcomes
quickly, thereby potentially affecting the way research projects are designed. Further, this scholarship
does not challenge dominant epistemological and ontological assumptions about visibility, instead
once again prioritizing ontological security. An alternate approach might adopt diverse epistemological
and ontological lenses, questioning how these temporal understandings inform our conventionally
linear interpretations of impact. Many systems of knowledge, for instance, would question our sense of
immediacy, instead reflecting on the impact of the knowledge on the next seven generations (Dei, 2011).
Another underlying assumption is that only that which can be measured is recognizable. As Ordorika
and Lloyd (2014) argue, these metrics rely on Eurocentric performance indicators, thereby perpetuating
the reliance on a linear relationship between research dissemination and user utilization. Yet many
acknowledge that there is value in challenging these traditional dichotomies between knowledge
producers and users (McCormack, 2011). Shifting our assumptions from a modernist frame of reference
leads us to explore the notion of impact in a very different way, opening up possibilities for research to
be developed in collaboration with communities or even driven by community needs. Freeing ourselves
from temporal and linear expectations may also cultivate more collaborative research approaches,
grounded in consensus building and decision-making, which is incompatible with contemporary met-
ric-driven research. This would then allow us to reflect on the ways in which these temporal concerns
impact how we structure both our research and our very research questions. Indeed, we may question
the fundamental assumption that short-term visibility is the most significant aspect of our work.
These critiques lead to questions about the ways in which current metrics affect research approaches,
what questions are explored and how methodologies are designed. Implicit in some of these critiques
is the call to acknowledge non-Euro systems of knowledge and ontologies. How might such a system
look if we were to let go of Eurocentric and neoliberal systems of belief? We now turn our attention
toward exploring some of the challenges and opportunities associated with envisioning a less restric-
tive approach.

Imagining the impossible: Toward pluriversal ‘impacts’

As noted, a modern onto-epistemic framework is socialized within our structures of knowing/being,
making it is difficult to ‘let go’ or shed the fantasy of security, futurity, and/or certainty that our modern
frame offers us. As we argued in this article, conceptualizations of impact are structured by a modern
subject’s desire for ontological security based on assumptions within modernity paradigms of absolute
knowability and control. We suggest that a ‘humility way of being’ is important to decenter ourselves
and allow us to let go of outcomes. This is tied to notions of Śūnyatā as espoused by some Japanese
and Chinese philosophers (e.g. Keiji Nishitani, Fa Ts’ang) (Izutsu, 2008; Nakagawa, 2000). Drawing on
Sousa Santos’s (2007) call for an alternative way to think about alternatives, we propose that what the
Śūnyatā worldview can teach us about scholarly impact is something very different from what our
existing referents tend to expect to learn from alternative knowledges. Before we explicate Śūnyatā
ontological teachings, some cautionary notes are in order.
In this exercise we were taught that our decolonial challenge does not lie in proposing Eastern world-
views or perspectives as viable alternatives to modern forms of knowing and being. In other words, we
 EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY   9

are not arguing that we should adopt a Śūnyatā worldview or way of being or to instrumentalize this
‘perspective’ in relation to scholarly impact. This would inevitably reproduce the violences of grafting,
re-coding, appropriation, and commodification that abound in efforts to decolonize academic spaces,
despite their good intentions (see Tuck & Yang, 2012). Unfortunately, many efforts to respond to the
universalization of Western knowledge production have followed a pattern of offering existing alterna-
tives without problematizing the re-coding of ‘othered’ epistemological categories and processes into
the very ontological structures one wants to criticize (Ahenakew, 2016). As such, we are not presenting
Śūnyatā teachings as context-free (universal) knowledge that can be instrumentalized as a general
epistemology. With these caveats in mind, we next present some Eastern ontological teachings and
illuminate how these teachings further implicate the notion of scholarly impact.
In light of our decolonial imperative, we thus draw on Eastern ontological perspectives of Śūnyatā to
highlight a tiered multi-stratified notion of reality (Izutsu, 2008; Nakagawa, 2000), pointing to ‘alterna-
tive’ views of knowing and being that are rendered invisible by our dominant onto-epistemic grammar
informing scholarly impact. Often conflated with idea of non-existence, Śūnyatā instead, refers to the
‘negation of self-subsistent or self-sufficient realities’ (Izutsu, 2008, p. 161). Hence, Śūnyatā does not
simply mean emptiness, void, or vacant in a purely negative sense. Śūnyatā signifies an ontological
reality of the ‘interpenetration of all things’. This idea is captured in the following quote from Izutsu
(2008, p. 178):
Thus the universe in this vista is a tightly structured nexus of multifariously and manifoldly interrelated ontological
events, so that even the slightest change in the tiniest part of it cannot but affect all the other parts.
In other words, ‘things’ are not objects in themselves, but rather depends for its existence upon
everything else, mutually originating and related to each other.
However, the ‘cognitive function of language’ prevents us from viewing things from a Śūnyatā per-
spective. As Nakagawa (2000) argues, we predominantly view the world at the level of naive realism,
whereby we perceive things as objective, separate, and solid entities, as evident in the ‘impact’ discourses
we have presented earlier. Izutsu (2008) further elaborates on this, by arguing that we view all things ‘in
the external world as solidly constituted substances...because our ordinary consciousness is by nature
so made that it functions only under the delusive influence of language’ (p. 165). Here by language, we
are not simply referring to discourse, but a nexus of semantic images or meanings that are embedded
in our psychic depth, i.e. ‘Storehouse Consciousness’. The latter forces us to cognize the external world
in terms of ‘so-called things’, while remaining unconscious that our naming and viewing of things are
derivatives of our linguistic Storehouse Consciousness, which has brought these ‘things’ into being. As
such, we view the world of things as independent entities through the unconscious work of language,
and become firmly convinced of these things’ objective existence (i.e. scholars, impact, research etc.). In
order for us to observe the interpenetration of all things, things need to be transparent. However, the
empirical things as they appear in their dimensions are all solid and opaque in the sense ‘that each of
them is rigidly guarded by its own essential boundaries against others flowing into it’ (Izutsu, 2008, p. 175).
In the context of our analysis, discourses of scholarly impact are a product of Storehouse Consciousness
that colonize us to view ourselves, our work, and the impact of our work as simply self-sufficient enti-
ties that are independent entities. Thus we continue to believe in the objective existence of ourselves
as independent entities (i.e. ‘scholars’ and our impact) ‘as objective existing realities’. In this view, we
consider ‘impact’ as solid entities, without questioning the Storehouse of Consciousness that not only
constructs the ‘objective existence’ of ‘impact’, but also then suggests that we can now observe and
evaluate this impact. Such perception negates the fundamental understanding of ‘nothing on its own’,
that nothing can be parsed from everything else in the universe (Izutsu, 2008).
In contrast, we propose embracing the idea: ‘All the different things in the empirical world are one
and the same in that each of them (i.e. every shih) embodies the one absolute Reality (i.e. the li) totally
and perfectly’ (Izutsu, 2008, p. 176). The empirical world as we see it, according to a Śūnyatā perspective,
is actually a ‘world of incessant change and limitless differentiation’, whereby nothing repeats itself.
Temporally, nothing remains the same even for a moment. Hence, every being becomes a fluid state in
which the distinctive demarcation completely vanishes and each interconnects with each (Nakagawa,
10    R. A. SHAHJAHAN AND A. E. WAGNER

Figure 1. Izutsu’s depiction of manifold interrelated things (p. 180).

2000). As such, the world becomes more fluid and subtle as evident in current quantum physics theories
(see Crease & Goldhaber, 2014). Finally, on this ontological ground the diverse appearance of all beings
is fundamentally unified (Nishitani, 1982).
As a result, a Śūnyatā perspective would challenge modern notions of causality. The idea of inter-
penetration of all things should not be confused with causal relation between things, or the coming-in-
to-being of a thing in terms of cause-effect relationship. For instance, in linear causality, a thing like X
(in our case ‘scholarly impact’) comes into being by tracing the chain of its causes (E, D, C. B) back to the
first cause A (i.e. X→E→D→C→B→A). In other words, from our perspective: Researcher designs a research
project to investigate the causes of a social phenomenon →findings identify factors contributing to
the creation of the phenomenon →research findings are published and propose a course of action
to address the phenomenon → findings are used to inform new policy directives. Thus, the adoption
and translation of the findings into a policy directive thus becomes interpreted as an indication of the
impact of the research.
This may be contrasted with Hua Yen perspective on Śūnyatā that conceptualizes ‘the universe in its
entirety is an infinitely vast multilayer structure of manifoldly interrelated things’ (Izutsu, 2008 p. 180).
As Izutsu (2008) puts it:
Not only are all things thus interdependent and correlative in the act of giving rise to, and maintaining, the phe-
nomenal world as a network of intricate ontological relations, but each one of the constitutive units of this network
is an original configuration of the metaphysical sūnyatā or non-articulation, positively functioning as the Buddha-
reality or li. (p. 180)
From a Śūnyatā perspective, the existence of X, is derivative of all the things (A, B, C, D, E…), which
are related to it and which work together in constituting X and keep it in being. Yet, also, each of the
things, A, B, C, D, etc. are also multifariously connected and constituting each other, so much so that
some are very close to X, some remote, and some far away. Simply, all things in the universe are seen
to be related to X closely or remotely in all degrees of closeness and remoteness. But A, B, C, D, while
appearing to play a role of constituting X, also may converge into constituting K, which maybe also
constituting or constituted by X. This interrelated nature of things is captured by Izutsu (2008) in the
following diagram (see Figure 1):
From this perspective, the mainstream Western conceptualization of impact is overly causal and
simplistic, as it is grounded in a belief that a scholar’s impact can be directly connected to a series of
causes (i.e. writing, research, speech, social media presence, activist action etc.) This level of causality
 EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY   11

is in direct tension with Śūnyatā thought. One could then ask: how is a flower then definitely different
from a bird, or a stone? To respond to this, according to Izutsu (2008), drawing on the thoughts of Fa
Ts’ang, we need to raise the question of ontological ‘powerfulness’ and ‘powerlessness’ components,
whereby while the flower, stone, and/or bird share all the same constituent ontological elements (i.e.
a,b, c, d, e…), some elements seem to be powerful (i.e. positively self-assert themselves) and dominant
(i.e. a), causing the rest (i.e. b, c, d, e) to be ‘powerless’, negative, and hidden under the surface. Similarly
the bird asserts itself as a bird, despite sharing all the infinite number of component factors with the
flower and stone, but asserts b, and renders powerless the other constituents. Thus, the bird, flower,
and stone are just three different forms ‘assumed by the absolute Reality (hsing) in arising (chi) out
of the state of non-articulation into the state of articulation in the world of our empirical experience’
(Izutsu, 2008, p. 184). As a result, given the cognitive ability of our empirical consciousness, we perceive
anything in the world, only on its ‘powerful’ element, with all the rest lying hidden from sight. However,
from a Śūnyatā viewpoint, we would perceive everything ‘not only in its powerful’ element but all the
‘powerless’ elements as well. In short, from the Śūnyatā perspective, a particular individual thing is no
longer a sole thing, but it is the whole universe.
Such an interrelated nature of reality begs the questions: what would impact look like from a Śūnyatā
worldview? Would impact even exist or be needed? Might it be possible to begin from the premise
that ‘impact’ is simply a distraction and a product of restlessness in our quest for ontological security
that helps to validate us as experts (Shahjahan et al., 2017)? Such a Śūnyatā perspective offers us an
alternative onto-epistemic grammar to raise existential questions (left unexplored in the literature)
and illuminates the edges/limits of our existing ways of knowing/ being structuring scholarly impact.
Central to this altered worldview is the ability/willingness to embrace uncertainty in our ways of know-
ing and being.
It is imperative, however, to resist another impulse of modernity in the form of ontological secu-
rity through seeking another form of distraction. When our futurity is at stake we may attempt to
replace these securities with alternative promises. We become restless and turn to worldviews that have
been marginalized by the dominance of modernity’s universality, including ethnic, Indigenous, and/
or non-Western perspectives, seeking radical solutions (Shahjahan et al., 2017). For example, we could
look to non-Western philosophical standpoints like Śūnyatā for solutions to the problem of scholarly
impact. We could propose alternative measures of impact, taking into account subaltern knowledges, or
we could leave the academy altogether in search of a space devoid of its frustrations and contradictions
(Andreotti et al., 2015). Rather than offering a solution for the crises we face, a decolonial approach
would suggest that for us to exist otherwise as human beings, we may have to pay attention to the
lessons being taught by the limits, failures and eventual collapse of modernity itself and thus we must
face its death both internal and external to ourselves (see Nishitani, 1982; Wynter, 2003). Ultimately, we
need to change our relationship with the contents and frames themselves in ways that they no longer
define our existence or allocate our desires and investments. As such, we try to change knowing without
changing our own ways of being (Shahjahan et al., 2017).
We are thus left with the following questions regarding scholarly impact: Can we imagine ‘impact’
from a pluriversal world of interconnections between ourselves and other sentient beings that are mutu-
ally constituted? Can we trust that given the interconnected nature of the universe that our scholarly
work does not need monitoring, nor metrics to prove ‘worthy’, but will take care of the universe as it is
meant to? Can we imagine stakeholders of our work that go beyond the ‘human world’? Can we accept
the discomfort that our work may not ‘make a difference’ at all, or in the ways we conceptualize ‘mak-
ing a difference’? As Andreotti et al. (2015) eloquently put it, we may need to interrupt our existential
attachments and desires, such as:
displacing ourselves from the center of the world; interrupting our desires to look, feel and ‘do’ good; exposing the
source and connections between our fears, desires, and denials; letting go of our fantasies of certainty, comfort, secu-
rity, and control;... and reaching the edge of our knowing and being—and jumping with our eyes closed. (pp. 36–37)
What could pluriversal ‘impacts’ look like, then?
12    R. A. SHAHJAHAN AND A. E. WAGNER

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Riyad A. Shahjahan is an associate professor of Higher, Adult and Life Long Education (HALE) at Michigan State University.
His areas of research interests are in globalisation of higher education policy, temporality and embodiment in higher
education, cultural studies and de/anti/postcolonial theory.
Anne E. Wagner, MSW, PhD, is an associate professor at Nipissing University in the department of Social Work. Her research
interests include critical approaches to higher education, neo-liberalism in academia and critical pedagogies. Currently
she is involved in a project exploring research leadership in the context of social justice.

References
Aguinis, H., Shapiro, D., Antonacopoulou, E., & Cummings, T. (2014). Scholarly impact: A pluralist conceptualization. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 13(4), 623–639. doi:10.5465/amle.2014.0121
Aguinis, H., Suarez-Gonzalez, I., Lannelongue, G., & Joo, H. (2012). Scholarly impact revisited. The Academy of Management
Perspectives, 26(2), 105–132.
Ahenakew, C. (2016). Grafting indigenous ways of knowing onto non-indigenous ways of being: The (under-estimated)
challenges of a decolonial imagination. International Review of Qualitative Research, 9(3), 323–340.
Andreotti, V. (2016). (Re)imagining education as an un-coercive re-arrangement of desires. Other Education: The Journal
of Educational Alternatives, 5(1), 79–88.
Andreotti, V., Stein, S., Ahenakew, C., & Hunt, D. (2015). Mapping interpretations of decolonization in the context of higher
education. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 4(1), 21–40.
Baffoe, M., Asimeng-Boahene, L., & Ogbuagu, B. C. (2014). Their way or no way: “Whiteness” as agent for marginalizing and
silencing minority voices in academic research and publication. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(1),
13–32. doi:10.14207/ejsd.2014.v3n1p13
Benneworth, P. (2015). Putting impact into context: The Janus face of the public value of arts and humanities research. Arts
and Humanities in Higher Education, 14(1), 3–8.
Crease, R. P., & Goldhaber, A. S. (2014). The quantum moment: How Planck, Bohr, Einstein, and Heisenberg taught us to love
uncertainty. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.
Dei, G. J. S. (Ed.). (2011). Indigenous philosophies and critical education: A reader. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3–7.
Van Dijck, J. (2010). Search engines and the production of academic knowledge. International Journal of Cultural Studies,
13(6), 574–592. doi:10.1177/1367877910376582
Dussel, E. D. (1985). Philosophy of liberation. Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books.
Evans, R. (2016). Achieving and evidencing research ‘impact’? Tensions and dilemmas from an ethic of care perspective.
Area, 48(2), 213–221. doi:10.1111/area.12256
Fonseka, C. (2011). Buddhism and empiricism. The Island Online. Retrieved January 15, 2017, from http://island.lk/index.
php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=32050
Gardner, J., Holmes, B., & Leitch, R. (2008). Where there is smoke, there is (the potential for) fire: Soft indicators of research
and policy impact. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(1), 89–104. doi:10.1080/03057640801890004
Gibbons, M. (2008). Why is translation important? Grounding the conversation. Retrieved from http://ktdrr.org/ktlibrary/
articles_pubs/ncddrwork/focus/focus21/Focus21.pdf
Giroux, H. A. (2004). Cultural studies, public pedagogy, and the responsibility of intellectuals. Communication and Critical/
Cultural Studies, 1(1), 59–79. doi:10.1080/1479142042000180926
Gorard, S. (2008). A re‐consideration of rates of ‘social mobility’ in Britain: Or why research impact is not always a good
thing. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(3), 317–324. doi:10.1080/01425690801966402
Izutsu, T. (2008). The structure of oriental philosophy: Collected papers of the Eranos Conference. Keio: Keio University Press.
Kolowich, S. (2010, December 17). New measures of scholarly impact. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.
insidehighered.com/news/2010/12/17/scholars_develop_new_metrics_for_journals_impact
Lagier, D. G. (2003). The paradoxes of action: Human action, law and philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lather, P. (2007). Getting lost: Feminist efforts toward a double(d) science. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Maldonado-Torres, N. (2007). On the colonality of being: Contributions to the development of a concept. Cultural Studies,
21(2–3), 240–270. doi:10.1080/09502380601162548
McCormack, B. (2011). Engaged scholarship and research impact: Integrating the doing and using of research in practice.
Journal of Research in Nursing, 16(2), 111–127. doi:10.1177/1744987110393419
Mignolo, W. (2011). The darker side of western modernity: Global futures, decolonial options. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
 EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY   13

Nakagawa, Y. (2000). Education for awakening: An Eastern approach to holistic education. Brandon: Education Renewal.
Nishitani, K. (1982). Religion and nothingness. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Ordorika, I., & Lloyd, M. (2014). International rankings and the contest for university hegemony. Journal of Education Policy,
30(3), 385–405. doi:10.1080/02680939.2014.979247
Osei-Kofi, N. (2012). Junior faculty of color in the corporate university: Implications of neoliberalism and neoconservatism
on research, teaching and service. Critical Studies in Education, 53(2), 229–244. doi:10.1080/17508487.2012.672326
Piwowar, H. (2013). Introduction altmetrics: What, why and where? Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology, 39(4), 8–9. doi:10.1002/bult.2013.1720390404
Ropers-Huilman, R., & Winters, K. T. (2011). Feminist research in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(6),
667–690.
Schnitzler, K., Davies, N., Ross, F., & Harris, R. (2016). Using TwitterTM to drive research impact: A discussion of strategies,
opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 59, 15–26.
Shahjahan, R. A. (2011). Decolonizing evidence-based education and policy movement: Revealing the colonial vestiges in
educational policy, research, and neoliberal reform. Journal of Education Policy, 26(2), 181–206.
Shahjahan, R. A., Blanco-Ramirez, G., & Andreotti, V. (2017). Attempting to imagine the unimaginable: A decolonial reading
of global university rankings (GURs). Comparative Education Review, 61(S1), S51–S73.
Shiva, V. (1995). Monocultures of the mind. London: Zed Books.
Smith, A. (2006). Heteropatriarchy and the three pillars of white supremacy rethinking women of color organizing. In INCITE!
Women of Color Against Violence (Ed.), The color of violence (pp. 66–73). Brooklyn, NY: South End Press.
Smith, M. (2010). Gender, whiteness, and “other Others” in the academy. In S. Razack, M. Smith, & S. Thobani (Eds.), States
of race: Critical race feminism for the 21st century (pp. 23–35). Toronto: Between the Lines.
Sousa Santos, Boaventura de. (2007). Beyond abyssal thinking: From global lines to ecologies of knowledges. Revista Critica
de Ciencias Sociais 80 ( June 29). http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2007-06-29-santos-en.html.
Stein, S., Hunt, D., Suša, R., & Andreotti, V. (2017). The educational challenge of unraveling the fantasies of ontological
security. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 11(2), 69–79. doi:10.1080/15595692.2017.1291501
Stewart, B. (2015). Open to influence: What counts as academic influence in scholarly networked Twitter participation.
Learning, Media and Technology, 40(3), 287–309. doi:10.1080/17439884.2015.1015547
Sudbury, J., & Okazawa-Rey, M. (2009). Activist scholarship: Antiracism, feminism, and social change. Florence: Routledge
Ltd.. doi:10.4324/9781315636177
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W.. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education, & Society, 1(1), 1–40.
Van de Ven, A. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wagner, A., & Yee, J. Y. (2011). Framing resistance in higher education: Implicating neo-liberalism. Canadian Social Work
Review, 28(1), 89–105.
Watermeyer, R. (2014). Issues in the articulation of ‘impact’: The responses of UK academics to ‘impact’ as a new measure
of research assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 359–377. doi:10.1080/03075079.2012.709490
Watermeyer, R. (2016). Impact in the REF: Issues and obstacles. Studies in Higher Education, 41(2), 199–214.
Weller, K. (2014). Social media and altmetrics: An overview of current alternative approaches to measuring scholarly impact.
In I. M. Welpe, J. Wollershiem, S. Ringelhan, & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and performance: Governance of research
organizations (pp. 261–276). London: Springer.
Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control: Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century
(pp. 847–857). Utrecht: SURF foundation.
Wynter, S. (2003). Unsettling the coloniality of being/power/truth/freedom: Towards the human, after man, its
overrepresentation – An argument. CR: The New Centennial Review, 3(3), 257–337.