{"id":12030,"date":"2016-12-01T10:10:54","date_gmt":"2016-12-01T15:10:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/researchimpact.ydsinc.ca\/building-an-impact-literate-research-culture\/"},"modified":"2021-11-23T09:34:55","modified_gmt":"2021-11-23T14:34:55","slug":"building-an-impact-literate-research-culture","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/researchimpact.ca\/fr\/archive\/building-an-impact-literate-research-culture\/","title":{"rendered":"Building an impact literate research culture: Some thoughts for the KT Australia Research Summit"},"content":{"rendered":"

This week’s guest post is from Julie Bayley<\/a>, Coventry University. It was originally published on her blog on November 12, 2016<\/a> and is reposted here with permission. <\/em>
\n\"Julie<\/a>I was delighted to be asked to speak at the KT Australia Research Impact Summit (November 2016). In my talk, I discussed many of the challenges of introducing an impact agenda into the academic community, and how impact literacy can help. An extended version of my slides are here<\/a>, but let me talk through the key points below.
\nConsider impact. A small word. A simple, standard part of our vocabulary meaning influence or effect. But go from (small i) impact to (big I) Impact, and you\u2019ve suddenly entered the domain of formal assessment and causal expectations. Arguably the UK have been the first to really take the Impact bull formally by the horns through the Research Assessment Framework 2014<\/a>, but of course efforts to drive research into usable practice are far from unique to this little island. Whilst every country is rich with learning about how knowledge best mobilises within its own context, the UK probably offers a unique insight into the realities of impact assessment<\/a> at scale and the multiple, non-prescribable pathways<\/a> connecting research to effect.
\nFirst principles: impact is the provable effects of research in the real world<\/em> (see slides 2 and 3<\/a>). It\u2019s the changes we can see (demonstrate, measure, capture), beyond academia (in society, economy, environment) which happen because of our studies (caused by, contributed to, attributable to). Dissemination, communication, engagement, knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange and knowledge mobilisation are all vital in getting research into practice, but in its truest form, \u2018impact\u2019 is the protected description of the resulting change.
\nLargely speaking, impact has three main drivers (slide 4<\/a>): funders<\/strong> (who increasingly require impact plans for research to be judged competitively), centralised assessment<\/strong> (eg the Research Excellence Framework, UK) and the individual academic\u2019s commitment<\/strong> to social, economic or environmental change. Formal sector expectations such as the REF are a double edged sword. On one side they legitimate engagement and outreach activities which can be disregarded in income\/publication focused environments. On the other however, they can confer unrealistic expectations on those disciplinary areas (eg. fundamental research) whose work does not naturally connect directly to \u2018real world change\u2019. Even where academics are personally committed to impact, the weight of complying with assessment rhetoric can corrode even the most impassioned resolve.
\nImpact offers challenges to academics and the institution alike (slide 5<\/a>). For the academic, weaving impact into already pressured environments can be exhausting, and the unease of meeting expectations for impacts that are \u2018significant\u2019 enough for external assessment can trigger anxiety and anger. For the institution, staffing, resourcing and embedding impact within existing structures whilst ensuring assessment requirements are met is extremely tough. Similarly we must remember and address the challenges for the beneficiaries themselves. The \u2018users\u2019 of our work are concerned with how well the research fits their needs, and how accessible and useful it is. Unless work is appropriate and suitable for the audience, it\u2019s unlikely to achieve its impact aims and will just introduce more burden into the user community.
\nSo how can we do impact well? After several years in impact I\u2019ve enjoyed\/ burned my fingers on a considerable volume of training, planning\/strategy building<\/a>, designing information management systems<\/a> and building impact into a university culture<\/a>, alongside academic research in the area and (health psychology) research submitted to REF. It\u2019s hard to disentangle the discrete elements of the impact process, which probably explains why I\u2019ve had my fingers in quite so many pies. I have discussed the challenges still facing the impact community<\/a> before, and how a reductionist, assessment driven approach can lead to impact short-sightedness<\/a>. However, academics have an amazing and very privileged opportunity to make a genuine and meaningful difference to the \u2018real world\u2019. For this, the research community needs to understand how to make impact happen. The research community needs to be impact literate<\/em>.
\nImpact literacy<\/a> (slide 6<\/a>, a term coined by myself and Dr David Phipps<\/a>, York University, Toronto) describes individuals\u2019 ability to understand, appraise and make decisions with regards to impact. Impact literacy involves understanding how the what<\/strong> (type, indicators and evidence of benefit), how<\/strong> (activities and engagement processes) and who<\/strong> (individuals\u2019 skills<\/a> and roles) of impact combine to produce effects. Impact literacy supports good decision making, clear planning and realistic methodologies. Impact can be pursued without being literate, but this is likely to lead to poor execution, missed opportunities, poor resource use and misaligned or underachieved targets. A person is only literate if they understand each of the three areas. If one is missing, thinking is incomplete:<\/p>\n