{"id":12096,"date":"2015-11-12T10:23:01","date_gmt":"2015-11-12T15:23:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/researchimpact.ydsinc.ca\/blog_impact-is-measured-by-talking-to-partners\/"},"modified":"2021-11-23T16:59:16","modified_gmt":"2021-11-23T21:59:16","slug":"blog_impact-is-measured-by-talking-to-partners","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/researchimpact.ca\/fr\/archive\/blog_impact-is-measured-by-talking-to-partners\/","title":{"rendered":"Impact is Measured by Talking to Partners Not Researchers \/ L\u2019impact se mesure en parlant aux partenaires plut\u00f4t qu\u2019aux chercheurs"},"content":{"rendered":"

Researchers either don\u2019t know or overestimate the impact of their research beyond the academy. Here are some ways to foster closer connections between researchers and policy makers and identify stories where research had an impact beyond the academy.<\/em>
\nSoit les chercheurs ne connaissent pas l\u2019impact de leurs travaux \u00e0 l\u2019ext\u00e9rieur de l\u2019universit\u00e9, soit ils le surestiment. Voici quelques cl\u00e9s pour favoriser les liens entre chercheurs et responsables des politiques, et pour reconnaitre les cas o\u00f9 la recherche a bel et bien eu un effet sur le monde ext\u00e9rieur.<\/em>
\n\"LSE<\/a>The LSE Impact Blog posted a blog<\/a> by Michele Ferguson, <\/strong>Brian Head, <\/strong>Adrian Cherney and Paul Boreham (University of Queensland) about their study examining the use of academic research evidence by policy makers. One key finding is that academics overestimate the use of academic research by policy makers. \u201cOur results demonstrate a disparity between academics\u2019 perception of the impact of their research and the opinions of public sector staff surveyed.\u201d
\nThis is reminiscent of the findings of SSHRC\u2019s evaluation of their Connections program which evaluated all of their knowledge mobilization funding programs from meeting grants, to journal grants to partnership grants. SSHRC published<\/a> their findings in September 2013. They found that end of grant reports were not effective for identifying impacts beyond the academy. Consistent with the Queensland post they found that researchers were also not very effective at reporting on impacts. Only partners on knowledge mobilization grants were able to indicate the impacts that occurred.
\nMakes sense. Since it is the partners who are going to use research to make the products, develop the policies or deliver the services that will eventually have an impact on Canadians then it makes sense to assess research impacts at the level of our partners, not our researchers.
\nMy #1 rule of impact is that impact is measured at the level of our partners<\/u><\/strong>.
\nDon\u2019t ask researchers to tell you about the impacts of their research. Stay in touch with your partners for many years following the conclusion of the research. Although, neither our funders nor any institution without a knowledge mobilization unit is structured to collect these stories of impacts. \u00a0See below for our approach.
\nObvious question: Why do we still rely on researcher reporting for evidence of impact?
\nBack to the LSE Blog post: The authors cite challenges policy makers face when trying to use academic research to inform policy decision. None of the observations are new or surprising but what the authors do that is helpful is make suggestions to help researchers and research institutions enhance the connections between research(ers) and policy (makers). This serves as a useful checklist for knowledge mobilization practices and is illustrated below with examples from our practice at York University\u2019s Knowledge Mobilization Unit.
\nFor academic research to have an influence, it must be accessible.<\/strong><\/p>\n