This is the introduction to a series on impact measurement for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) researchers.  

Drawing on their expertise in information science and instructional technology, Lindsay McNiff (Dalhousie University) and Lauren Hays (University of Central Missouri) created a reference guide for the CEL website to help Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) practitioners find, understand, and engage with the literature of the field. However, for those scholars who contribute to this body of SoTL literature, being asked to discuss the impact of their research may seem daunting. Methods of measuring research impact have historically focused on the sciences and their own methods of sharing information (i.e., the scientific paper). The h-index? It was developed by a physicist (Hirsch 2005). That new article on heart cancer treatments that’s making the rounds on social media? It probably accumulated another new citation in the amount of time it took to read this paragraph (Kulkarni, Busse, and Shams 2007).

This series

In this biased and fast-paced environment, what’s a SoTL researcher to do? The good news: you’re not alone. Many authors are turning their attention to the valuable contributions of the scholarship of teaching and learning and how best to articulate their significance (Kullmann 2024).

In that vein, this multi-part blog series focuses on evaluating the impact of the different types of work commonly done in SoTL.  

• Part 1 examines traditional methods of publication in SoTL and shows possible ways to discuss influence.  
• Part 2 will highlight nontraditional impact measurement methods—for traditional or nontraditional types of SoTL work.  
• Part 3 will touch on ways to maximize research impact, for early career researchers to seasoned scholars and everyone in between.  

Each of the three parts contains examples and follow-up questions to guide exploration. The whole series assumes that the audience is new to research impact measurement.  

Why measure research impact? 

Why should SoTL researchers consider the impact of their publications? Many people may only worry about such things when it’s time for review, when going up for promotion, or when a new dean arrives. It’s also worth noting that the processes of impact measurement are rife with problems and contradictions (Larivière and Sugimoto 2019)—issues that reach back almost to the founding of the field (Garfield 1979) and show little sign of abatement (Glenn 2009; Priem et al. 2011; Vinyard and Colvin 2023; Woolston 2023).  

Telling the story of your research can be a valuable exercise for any point in your career. Yes, examining the current state of published works could bolster, for example, a future grant application for a data-driven organization. Working to increase the impact of your work could also mean that it lands on the desk of more practitioners—a great tactic if you’re arguing for a new take on a critical situation. On a more holistic note, seeing how your work resonates within the SoTL community may offer new insights into its significance and influence, important things as you consider future directions for your research. 

If you’re curious about the attention that your work has garnered, watch for the next post in this series. 

References 

Garfield, Eugene. 1979. “Is Citation Analysis a Legitimate Evaluation Tool?” Scientometrics 1 (4): 359–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019306.  

Glenn, David. 2009. “Scholars Seek Better Metrics for Assessing Research Productivity.” Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/scholars-seek-better-metrics-for-assessing-research-productivity/.  

Hirsch, Jorge. E. 2005. “An Index to Quantify an Individual’s Scientific Research Output.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102 (46): 16569–72. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102. 

Kulkarni, Abhaya V., Jason W. Busse, and Iffat Shams. 2007. “Characteristics Associated with Citation Rate of the Medical Literature.” PLoS ONE 2 (5): e403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000403. 

Kullmann, Sylvia. 2024. “Teaching Counts! Open Educational Resources as an Object of Measurement for Scientometric Analysis.” Quantitative Science Studies 6: 216–237. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00346. 

Larivière, Vincent, and Cassidy R. Sugimoto. 2019. “The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects.” In Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, edited by Wolfgang Glänzel, Henk F. Moed, Ulrich Schmoch, and Mike Thelwall, 3–24. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1. 

McNiff, Lindsay, and Lauren Hays. n.d. “Finding SoTL Research.” Center for Engaged Learning. Accessed February 6, 2025. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/studying-engaged-learning/finding-sotl-research/. 

Priem, Jason, Dario Taraborelli, Paul Groth, and Cameron Neylon. 2011. “Altmetrics: A Manifesto,” Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. 185. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/185/.  

Vinyard, Marc, and Jaimie Beth Colvin. 2023. Demystifying Scholarly Metrics: A Practical Guide. 1st ed. London: Bloomsbury Visual Arts. https://doi.org/10.5040/9798400639180.  

Woolston, Chris. 2023. “Measuring Societal Impact: How to Go Beyond Standard Publication Metrics.” Nature 614 (7947): 375–77. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00345-1.  

About the Author 

Ellen Cline is the Engineering & Physical Science Librarian at Elon University. She holds an MSLS from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and previously served as a Research Librarian at Missouri University of Science & Technology. 

How to Cite This Post  

Cline, E. 2025. “Telling Your Research Story: Research Impact Measurement in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.” Center for Engaged Learning (blog). May 23, 2025. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/telling-your-research-story-research-impact-measurement-in-the-scholarship-of-teaching-and-learning/.