{"id":12145,"date":"2015-02-19T11:41:46","date_gmt":"2015-02-19T16:41:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/researchimpact.ydsinc.ca\/is-engagement-a-necessary-precursor-to-impact\/"},"modified":"2021-11-23T16:58:51","modified_gmt":"2021-11-23T21:58:51","slug":"is-engagement-a-necessary-precursor-to-impact","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/researchimpact.ca\/fr\/archive\/is-engagement-a-necessary-precursor-to-impact\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Engagement a Necessary Precursor to Impact?"},"content":{"rendered":"

This week’s post by David Phipps (RIR-York) first appeared on the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement Blog<\/a> on February 9, 2015 and is reposted here with permission.<\/em>
\n\"Impact
\nDuring the Engage 2014<\/a> conference I tweeted this question from Canada:’Is engagement a necessary precursor to impact?<\/em>‘. I didn\u2019t get an answer. But this question is important as our universities and our researchers are increasingly being driven to consider the extra academic impacts of their research. These pressures are coming from (1) Funders; (2) Assessment exercises such as Research Excellence Framework<\/a> (REF), something we don\u2019t have in Canada; and (3) Institutions who are competing in these spaces but only now starting to consider the implications of institutional norms such as tenure and promotion, something we are working on in Canada through the Engaged Scholarship Partnership<\/a>.
\nBefore considering if engagement is a necessary precursor to impact we need to consider if there is even a connection between the two. NCCPE<\/a> defines public engagement as:<\/p>\n

\u201c…the myriad of ways in which the activity and benefits of higher education and research can be shared with the public. Engagement is by definition a two-way process, involving interaction and listening, with the goal of generating mutual benefit.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And REF defines impact as defined:<\/p>\n

\u201c…an effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia.\u201d<\/em> Page 26 in the Assessment Framework and Guidance on Submissions<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Therefore if engagement creates mutual benefit and impact defines that benefit beyond the academy then engagement and impact ae related. Since engagement is ‘the myriad of ways<\/em>‘ and impact is the ‘benefit<\/em>‘ then impact is what<\/strong> we wish to achieve and engagement is how<\/strong> we might achieve that.
\nThis is exactly what I have said about knowledge mobilization. I have described<\/a> knowledge mobilization as a suite of services (the how<\/strong>) designed to maximize the extra academic impacts of research (the what<\/strong>).
\nSo are public engagement and knowledge mobilization synonymous? No. And this is best explained using Memorial University of Newfoundland as an example. Memorial has a Research Strategy Framework<\/a> that calls for the university to (among other things) \u201ccreate, share and apply research and to encourage, facilitate and value university-community research collaborations<\/em>.\u201d This is distinct from the Public Engagement Framework<\/a> which has four goals:<\/p>\n