The following report was prepared for Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and was prepared by Stephen MacGregor, David Phipps, Cathy Malcolm Edwards, Jen Kyffin, Virginie Portes.
Aim of the Report
For over 20 years, there has been mounting interest
in how the Canadian research enterprise can support research impact, referring
to “the influence scholarly and creative inquiry has upon wider society,
intended as well as unintended, immediate as well as protracted” (Federation
for the Humanities and Social Sciences, 2017, p. 13)[1]. Efforts to progress
research impact are known as knowledge mobilization (KMb). To date, much of
the focus in KMb has been either on (a) the public policies driving increased
emphasis on impact (e.g., Bandola-Fill, 2019; Boswell & Smith, 2017;
Williams & Grant, 2018), or (b) moving research evidence from a project
into its use by a downstream stakeholder and measuring that use (e.g., Edwards
& Meagher, 2019; Morton, 2015; Budtz Pedersen et al., 2020). However,
comparatively little is known about the KMb roles and functions of research
institutions in support of research impact. This report outlines how research
institutions will play a critical role in the future of KMb and research
impact as the link between what governments and funders want and what
researchers and their partners can deliver.
1. The Landscape for KMb and Impact: Where Have We
Been?
In 2006, SSHRC launched a renewed program
architecture requiring every grant application to have a KMb strategy (i.e.,
a plan outlining anticipated impacts with the target audiences along with the efforts
that will be made to achieve them). Owing to this focus on KMb strategies, Canadian
researchers are incentivized to focus on describing how to create
impacts (mission driven), which is notably different than many international
examples (e.g., UK), where researchers are incentivized to focus on what impacts
have occurred (assessment driven). Seeing both framings as useful, the report invokes
the concept of research impact literacy, defined as the ability to “identify
appropriate impact goals and indicators, critically appraise and optimise
impact pathways, and reflect on the skills needed to tailor approaches across
contexts” (Bayley & Phipps, 2019a, p. 3). Impact literacy recognizes that
impact is influenced by actions and events not only at the level of individual
researchers, but also at the levels of research institutions and the systems
in which they are embedded. As
research institutions begin to develop their impact literacy, the need to
underpin KMb practice with KMb research has become more acute, setting the
stage for where we are now (Table 1).
Table 1
Summary of the Past, Present, and
Future of KMb and Impact
|
Past
|
Present
|
Future
|
|
Major focus in both practice and scholarship on
linear models of KMb, such technology
transfer or commercialization offices
|
Recognition of the need for relational and systems
models of KMb, but limited institutional support
|
Exploring the parallel and
contingent operation of different models of KMb as impact becomes a core
component of the research enterprise
|
|
Awareness
that university research should have an impact on society
|
Proliferation of mission-driven and
assessment-driven systems of impact
|
Evidence-informed
KMb through individual and institutional capacity building for impact
literacy
|
|
KMb theory disconnected from practice
|
Increasing connections between practitioners and
scholars of KMb
|
Internationalization of impact practice and
scholarship
|
2. The Landscape for KMb and Impact: Where Are We Now?
2.1. Institutional Roles in KMb
At a general level, research institutions
enact KMb roles aligned with the three generations of models for KMb:
- “Linear models in which research is produced and then
made available for users in a mainly one-way relationship;
- Relationship models (such as
network and partnership models) that build on linear models but focus on
enhancing relationships between and among researchers and practitioners to
facilitate the development and mobilisation of research and practice
connections;
- Systems models that move away from
linear processes and involve a more complex process involving interaction,
co-creation and implementation of evidence throughout all levels of a system,
plus identifying and addressing barriers to mobilising research and practice
knowledge for evidence use.” (Campbell et al., 2017, p. 212)
Each “generation” reflects learning acquired over time and efforts to address limitations in earlier theories. Moreover, relationship and systems models for KMb are more inclusive of different forms of knowledge, or ways of knowing, as exemplified by developments in cross-cultural research such as with Indigenous communities. Recent scholarship is increasing focus on how to develop operational models, tools, and case examples of applying systems theory to KMb. An important line of inquiry for future research will be how different actors holding different KMb roles—aligned with linear, relationship, and systems models of KMb—within research institutions can work synergistically, overcoming constraints and building collective efficacy.
3. The Landscape for KMb and Impact: Where Are We
Going?
3.1. Impact Will Be A Core
Component of the Research Enterprise
The
future of KMb and impact will see the integration of impact into descriptions
of research programs alongside a blurring of the boundaries between assessment-driven
and mission-driven systems of impact, where governments provide incentives for
impacts that are driven by institutional missions. These developments will, in
turn, drive success in institutional rankings. The Times Higher Education
(THE) rolled out the Impact Rankings[2]
in 2019, ranking universities on their impacts towards the Sustainable
Development Goals. Institutions are beginning to align efforts as impact assessment
becomes part of national (e.g., the REF) and international (e.g., THE)
rankings.
As
impact becomes a core component of the research enterprise, it will also be
recognized in tenure and promotion (T&P). The local contexts of T&P
review are critical to understanding, recognizing, and rewarding scholarship
that reaches beyond academia (Lambert-Pennington 2016), yet Canadian T&P
policies are inconsistent with regards to KMb efforts (Barreno et al., 2013).
As academic institutions increasingly value KMb as means to compete in
international impact rankings, T&P policies and their implementation at
the departmental, faculty, and senate levels will need to evolve to reward
these activities.
3.2. Individual and
Institutional Capacity Building for Impact Literacy
As
institutions are driven towards impact through their missions, assessment
exercises, and rankings, they will need to build their own institutional
impact literacy as well as the impact literacy of faculty, students, and
staff. There are many workshops and one-off capacity building sessions
frequently delivered at conferences, but currently, there are few courses that
build impact literacy. As scholars and practitioners link across fields of
investigation and practice, such as implementation science and integrated
knowledge translation, courses will become accredited (e.g., as KTPC is
accredited by the University of Toronto School of Continuing Studies) and
entire graduate programs will be created with both scholarly and practicum
elements.
Hiring impact literate staff (academic
and non-academic) will contribute to building institutional impact literacy.
As institutions pursue higher impact rankings, they will need to build their
capacity to support impact. For example, impact is becoming a core element of
Strategic Research Plans[3] ,
which will in turn drive investments in staff and capacity building for impact
literacy. Tools such as Institutional Healthcheck Workbook are likely to be
useful in this endeavour (Bayley & Phipps, 2019b).
3.3. Internationalization of
Impact Practice and Scholarship
Researchers
around the world are creating evidence on KMb and impact, but according to
Powell et al. (2017), practitioners around the world are not using the
evidence. To overcome this hurdle, there will be more practice–scholarship
collaborations, such as the collaboration between practitioners in Research
Impact Canada and the RIPPLE program of research at Queen’s University that
has resulted in this and one other publication (MacGregor and Phipps, 2020).
And these collaborations will be increasingly international. These individual
collaborations are being replicated at the national level. Research Impact
Canada is collaborating with the US-based Advancing Research Impact for
Society network. Together they are developing a research impact and
stakeholder engagement tool kit for the INORMS RISE working group and are
planning a joint cross border impact conference in 2021. Driven by
international rankings such as THE Impact Rankings, the future of KMb will see
the growth of impact literate practitioners and institutions dedicated to
using investments in research to benefit society.
4. The Landscape for KMb and Impact: How are we going to get there?
The future of KMb and research impact will see impact become a core feature of the research enterprise, the building of individual and institutional impact literacy, and the internationalization of impact theory and assessment. But universities are operating on a business model that looks similar to early universities back to the University of Bologna in 1088. Universities are slow, if not resistant, to change. But they do respond to external and internal opportunities should they choose to move towards becoming a “permeable university,” a term coined by the University of Lincoln late in 2019[4] to imagine a university that is open and responsive to local and global communities. See table 2 in the full report, where we suggest several key leverage points for those opportunities.
[1] See the report for
full references to cited sources.
[2] https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/impact/2019
[3] https://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/strategic_research_plan-plan_recherche_strategique-eng.aspx
[4] https://staffnews.lincoln.ac.uk/2019/11/25/the-permeable-university-a-new-manifesto/
MacGregor, S., Phipps, D., Malcolm Edwards, C., Kyffin, J. & Portes, V. (2021). Institutionally Embedded Professionals’ Perspectives on Knowledge Mobilization: Findings from a Developmental Evaluation. Canadian Journal of Higher Education / Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur, 51(3), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.vi0.189103