‘What have we learnt and where do we go from here?’Report of the inaugural Research Impact Network event on 26th February 2014

Ronni Littlewood, University of Warwick; Dr Jo Allen, University of Brighton; Dr Laura Corbin, formerly Cardiff University; Sam Gray, Manchester Metropolitan University; Dr Rebecca Steliaros, Research in Focus; Ewa Thompson, Plymouth University.

For feedback and comments on this report, please contact Ronni Littlewood, Research Impact Officer, University of Warwick, v.r.littlewood@warwick.ac.uk

1

Contents

Research Impact Network Event: Introduction.................................................................3

PART 1: WHERE HAVE WE BEEN and WHERE ARE WE NOW?......................................3

a) The business of ‘doing’ impact.....................................................................................4

b) Practical and Emotional Challenges............................................................................7

c) The Impact ‘Ecosystem’...................................................................................................7PART 2: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?........................................................................10

CULTURE CHANGE AND EMBEDDING IMPACT.............................................................10

CAPTURING IMPACT..............................................................................................................12

COMMUNICATING IMPACT..................................................................................................14

THE FUTURE/MANIFESTO: Summary table...................................................................16

2

Research Impact Network Event: IntroductionThis is our summary analysis of the inaugural Research Impact Network event, which took place at the University of Warwick on 26th February 2014.

The event was a valuable opportunity for reflection on experiences of supporting, co-ordinating or managing REF impact case studies and to identify key learning points to take forward to the next REF or any future impact reporting requirements. It also provided an opportunity to network with colleagues in similar roles in other HEIs and share experiences. I think some of us benefitted from this therapeutic approach.

During the event, a huge amount of discussion was generated, and apologies that we haven’t been able to publish anything before now. We wanted to ensure that we did justice to the excellent contributions of all those who attended, and it has taken some time to make sense of all the material and shape it into a form which we can do something with, laying foundations for future activities and events and creating a provisional framework of resources for the future. For the last few months (in addition to all of the stuff that I do as part of my job) I have been treading water amidst a sea of flip chart paper and post-it notes, and this is what I’ve come up with so far.

This is the first of two reports which will be based on the following themes:

1) Where have we been and where are we now – our REF experiences and the challenges that we face?

2) Where do we need to go from here: The Future/The Manifesto and suggestions for future events and activities.

This report is on the first of these topics.

For the sake of brevity and clarity, the discussion responses have been ‘themed’ into different areas of activity. There are numerous ways to cut this, but by and large we wanted to create some coherent topics around the types of challenges that our particular community faces. (Inevitably there may be some overlap, or possibly even repetition). These could potentially form the basis for future, more detailed discussions around each of these topics or alternatively form the basis for an action plan for engaging with others within our ‘impact eco-system’ (of which, more anon).

PART 1: WHERE HAVE WE BEEN and WHERE ARE WE NOW?Our first session involved us all talking about the objects that we had brought to reflect our own experiences of working with research impact in the context of the REF. Although possibly a slightly new type of concept for some, it had the benefit of bringing to the fore some of the emotionally laden, frustrating, infuriating or otherwise aspects of the REF in a graphic and often humorous way, enabling us to tap into elements of the experience which are often closed off to ‘colder’ discussions focussing purely on process and procedure. This is not just ‘touchy-feely’ stuff, it can illuminate, for institutions and funders, the things that frustrate us the most and often require disproportionate amounts of brain-power and energy to deal with. If, collectively, we can begin to have a dialogue and work together on some of these issues, we could potentially work towards helping each other to achieve our goals.

3

We return to the practical and emotional challenges later……

What are the Challenges we face?

a) The business of ‘doing’ impactDefinitions and understanding impact

In many ways it’s frustrating to start with discussion about definitions. We feel that we ought to have moved on from this. But clearly, this is still a current issue and potentially a barrier to more meaningful and productive discussions about how to support and capture impact.

Nevertheless it still is, and continues to be an issue for colleagues in many institutions, particularly in terms of the different definitions/conceptualisations of impact adopted by the REF and by the Research Councils. Building case studies to meet the REF criteria is a significant challenge but we mustn’t forget that the requirements of the REF are somewhat different from other those adopted by other Funders (particularly the UK Research Councils but increasingly the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 programme).

Communicating the distinction between academic and non-academic impact remains an issue for some of us, as is helping colleagues to distinguish between dissemination and engagement and impact. Multi-disciplinary projects present their own particular set of challenges, with the potential for different interpretations of impact across different disciplines.

In summary, the potential for variable interpretations has its advantages in enabling us to be flexible about what counts as ‘impact’ (of the non-academic variety). Yet at the same time the variations of impact requirements for different funders and stakeholders creates confusion and a lack of coherence within our own institutions about what impact is and what we should be looking for or supporting. Our view is that stakeholders and funders might be able to work together more closely on this in the future, with a view to converging or helping us to find a form of language which conveys a clearer, more consistent definition of ‘impact’.

Identifying impact

Follows on from the previous point about definitions. If we know what it is that we’re supposed to be looking for, it’ll be much easier to identify…..

REF impact case studies were a retrospective exercise, yet now institutions are thinking about how to identify potential future case studies (research with the potential for impact) in order to support the outreach and engagement of that research in the hope of maximising its potential for impact. If we can bring together different core definitions and interpretations of impact now, it will help to put us on a firm foundation for the future.

Our challenges at institutional level involve selectivity about which projects or research activities we can support. We simply don’t have the resources to track and support everything, but we would probably want a big enough sample of work to draw on the next time it comes to drafting impact case studies.

4

Therefore we need to identify early on which research projects or activities might turn into good case studies or have good research impact later on. Research Councils and Horizon 2020 funding applications require us to identify the potential engagement activities and beneficiaries as part of the application process. Tracking the actual engagement and subsequent impact would be a start, but this cuts out a large body of work which is not necessarily funded through such sources. Having pre-defined ‘pathways to impact’ might give us numerous red herrings and close our minds off to serendipitous or unforeseen impacts and timing is key. What is the ‘endpoint’ of the research, or of the impact? Research may be relevant, but not necessarily ready to be applied in a particular context. Does that mean it is the end of the road for a particular project or do we still continue to track it? Then there is the issue of ‘culling the weak and wounded’ (by which of course we mean impact case studies, rather than individuals).

A major challenge for Research Managers is the way in which we keep track of research and its impact. We were very much at the mercy of institutional memory to support the gathering of information about underpinning research. If case studies feature as the main mode of reporting for the next REF exercise, the expectations might be so much higher given that we now know a bit about what is expected. How do research managers and academics keep appropriate records of their research and of their impact? What do ‘good’ case studies look like?

Crafting and constructing

Whether we were actively involved in writing, or acting as editors or advisors to those who were writing REF impact case studies, we needed to exercise a considerable amount of skill in crafting case studies to meet the rigorous demands of the REF.

This didn’t just involve ensuring that case studies were factually accurate and met the technical requirements in terms of the timing constraints for the research and the subsequent impact (which was often very difficult to do post hoc). Although we need to acknowledge the considerable challenges we faced in trying to construct cases for staff who had left the institution for which supporting evidence was hard to find.

We often had to create case studies from a blank page. Although HEFCE provide ‘indicative’ lists of impact categories, we would question whether many of those were in fact realistic, and a lack of a typology meant that the process of selecting and agreeing on case studies was without a solid foundation.

We have to understand the original (‘underpinning’) research and how this relates to the subsequent impact (particularly where impact was more conceptual than just producing ‘widgets’ or return on investment), creating a coherent narrative in a form which is accessible to a general audience. The two challenges which were mentioned time and time again were around evidence gathering and storytelling.

Finding relevant evidence for impact retrospectively, in the absence of baseline data proved to be extremely challenging. Much depended on what could be corroborated, and in some cases it was nigh on impossible to corroborate claims about the impact of public engagement activities or in trying to find web-based sources due to the ephemeral nature of the internet. Much of our evidence is dependent on the quality of our relationships with our ‘corroborating contacts’ and with their

5

understanding of what is required of them. There is a need for education all-round about what research impact is, amongst the academic community, amongst research officers, amongst the senior management within our institutions and amongst those who support us by being our corroborators: contacts in business, in public authorities and the third sector. We have yet to discover how panels will evaluate reach and significance so we’ve no way of knowing how our evidence will stack up against the criteria.

Evidence is necessary but not in itself sufficient for a good case study. The impact narrative has to be a convincing story in which a clear logic chain from research through to impact, using the right indicators, has to be stitched together, distilling a highly complex set of concepts into a piece of writing which is accessible, whilst not leaving out any of the vital detail. This sets REF case studies quite apart from any other form of writing, and the ability to write clearly and convincingly should not be underestimated, and neither should the skill and professionalism of the research managers who played a significant role in writing or editing case studies.

Processual Issues (as in understanding the process of impact, and the implications that this has for the way we work).

We’re not pretending that research and impact can be reduced to a simple linear process, but understanding ‘impact’ as a lifecycle rather than as an event gives rise to a number of operational and organisational challenges, many of which stem from the fact that as research managers we have to work as part of a much bigger ‘eco-system’.

We’ve already looked at the challenges associated with identifying potential impact case study candidates but there are many other aspects of the impact timeline that we will be tasked with after 2014 including

Understanding and education colleagues about some of the more technical aspects of impact: attribution, time-lag, duration, deadweight, displacement etc. and the implications that each of these have for tracking research and recording impact.

Supporting engagement with research, whilst appreciating that it does not constitute ‘impact’

Ensuring that researchers who were not involved with the REF impact case studies for the 2014 exercise understand how to establish an audit trail for the future

Linking relevant research outputs (as indicators of the quality of the underpinning research) to particular instances of impact; understanding the quality thresholds and appreciating that research quality and impactful research are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

‘Monitoring’ (or tracking if you prefer) impact: gathering and storing evidence in its many varied forms

Maintaining productive relationships with external collaborators (‘users’) to provide testimonials as evidence of research impact

Understanding the ‘endpoint’: when to stop looking for relevant evidence.

The theme running through all of this is ownership. Where does this sit; with academic colleagues, with departments or with the central university administration? There is a need for robust, integrated approaches to managing these tasks within our institutions. Roles and responsibilities need to be clear from the outset and there needs to be effective co-ordination between university

6

departments, between central university administrators and faculties and between administrators and academics.

Some of the processual challenges necessitate a response from our institutions’ senior management and HEFCE; including the potential unintended consequences of the link between numbers of case studies and numbers of staff included in the REF submission, and putting in place appropriate reward and recognition for impact.

b) Practical and Emotional ChallengesThere are undoubtedly many practical challenges that we face, and continue to face as Research Managers. In addition to everything that we’ve mentioned so far, there are numerous practical considerations such as workload and time commitment, particularly for those of us who have to juggle other roles within our institutions.

We should also recognise the emotional investment that we and other colleagues in our institutions which is inevitably associated with the time and effort required for the task. It was often highly frustrating, for example when colleagues did not read guidance and whose contributions were therefore ineligible for inclusion. Some of us experienced it as a very inefficient process, with potential for too much wasted effort. We often had to deal with very stressful situations, providing reassurance and support during anxious times. The Impact Template (3A) was often met with much vexation and exasperation as there is no clear sense of what a good one looks like.

Following the REF submission, we might have been momentarily glad to see the back of the case studies, but there was a real sense that we didn’t want to just abandon them and move onto other things. There is undoubtedly much to be gained by exploring what we learnt from the process, and from using the material gathered during the preparation of the case studies in productive ways (working them up into exemplars for external audiences, understanding more about the pathways and processes of impact etc.).

c) The Impact ‘Ecosystem’Culture/expertise/community

There’s no doubt that anyone who has been involved with the REF case studies in whatever capacity has built up a certain amount of knowledge and expertise about research impact, and that in and of itself is a valuable asset for individual institutions and for the sector.

We have already done the job of constructing the case studies and the templates; identifying, collecting and storing useful evidence; understanding the ‘logic chain’ of impact in terms of how evidence can corroborate claims of impact, particularly in less tangible outcomes such as policy influence and impact.

This is expertise which will be essential within our institutions as we move forward towards the next REF, but we need to make progress in terms of embedding this within our institutional structures and creating a community. Many of the challenges here concern ownership, which we have already mentioned, and institutional support and constraints which is discussed below, but also relates to things which may be outside of our immediate remit, such as incentivisation.

7

Embedding impact is primarily about introducing the right structures and processes now, providing good support for academic colleagues who want to engage with the impact agenda and developing greater awareness and ‘impact literacy’ for others. Crucially, it may be that impact does not sit within one particular department in the institution, and it is likely to bring together multiple functions including marketing, communication, knowledge transfer, business development, training etc. Whilst responsibilities and activities are likely to be distributed across the institution, some central co-ordination and management is essential to ensure that a coherent strategy is being implemented across the institution. Culture change is more about finding ways to work with academic colleagues in order to maximise impact and gaining their buy-in, both practically and ideologically.

Culture change is a longer term project, admittedly, but one which needs to be kick-started now in terms of embedding relevant support structures within our institutions for engagement and impact.

Institutional Support/Constraints

Our institutional structures were obviously not designed with the REF impact case studies, or with Research Impact in mind. Whilst some put in place support specifically for the REF submission exercise, and others are continuing to provide infrastructure and support to impact and engagement activities, it was clear that organisational structures and ways of working could either enable or frustrate (mainly frustrate, actually) support for engagement and impact.

Institutional here means, not just our own Universities, but encompasses national level institutions including HEFCE and the Research Councils. Just because REF has left us for a while, it doesn’t mean that we’re absolved of our responsibilities for a few years. The notion of research impact goes beyond the demands of the REF. We are seeing this most acutely with the UK Research Councils and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 programme, but there are numerous other reasons why we need to be able to demonstrate the impact or broader benefits of our institutions’ investment in research (and indeed, why it would be beneficial to do so).

Therefore each institution’s senior management needs to maintain momentum by introducing impact strategies and practical measures such as systems/processes for capturing impact (with a note of caution that a push to operationalize before a well-formed strategy is in place will be potentially damaging, confusing and inefficient).

Resourcing (including time and workload allocation) needs to be sufficient to enable support structures and methods for capturing impact to be established. The importance of ‘institutional memory’ was mentioned repeatedly, and getting in place the right structures now may help us to overcome challenges of staff movement and trying to construct case studies for staff who no longer work at the institution. We mention above that this could be a distributed task, but institutions need to make their own choices about what is appropriate, and where support structures should live (whether that is within the school, college, faculty or central administration). Many institutions are likely to face significant challenges in maintaining a good balance between clear structure and delineation of tasks (between academic and administrative colleagues or between different functional specialisms of the institution) and promoting a collaborative model of working.

8

Just recognising that impact is something which needs to be done, and putting in place adequate support for it might not be enough. Institutions also need to be thinking about how to incentivise, recognise and reward efforts in support of public engagement and impact, and ensure buy-in by academic colleagues (introducing ‘impact champions’ for example).

Relationship Management

With good strategies and support structures, research managers should be in a good position to play a pivotal role in preparing institutions for the future demands of the impact agenda. Making this happen; bringing about organisational or culture change, will inevitably require the skilful management of relationships across different areas of the institution.

An important part of this is working with academic colleagues to understand their research its potential for or actual impact. As we’ve already mentioned, this is partly about definitions and understanding that engagement and impact are not synonymous. Being as clear as we can be about definitions of impact, and its relationship to knowledge exchange, knowledge transfer or other concepts, and using clear and consistent language is crucial.

Early engagement with academics about the potential impact from their research is key, particularly in the project planning or bidding stages where there is a possibility to build in resources. Impact ought to be at the core of any research project; the reason why it is important, the difference it will make. Being able to articulate the potential value of a research in terms of its benefits to a range of external audiences and stakeholders could potentially play an ever increasingly significant part in gaining funding but could also be applicable to other areas such as marketing and student recruitment. Hence impact has a greater value than just REF and part of our role will inevitably be communicating this.

Whilst we may be clear that it’s important to emphasise the broader benefits of research, many of our academic colleagues are still to be convinced of this. This presents a continual challenge, and one which often requires trust and careful negotiation and dialogue in order to get good information about the research and its potential impact or benefits.

Clear definitions of research impact, in addition to good, user-friendly processes and systems, should help to reduce the burden for academics in the longer term. Making it easier to spot, track and record impact is likely to result in clearer coherent impact narratives later on.

Relationship management isn’t just confined to the way we work with academic colleagues. It is also fundamental to building productive relationships with our external partners, whether they are (potential) collaborators, funders or audiences for the research.

9

PART 2: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?This part of the report is about looking towards the future. During our event in February we coalesced around three pertinent themes:

Culture Change and Embedding Impact Capturing Impact Communicating Impact

Whilst we’ve adopted these themes to organize our conclusions, it will become apparent that these are not mutually exclusive concepts, rather they are interlinked. In order to capture information about research impact, we need to promote a culture which rewards and recognises it as central to the mission of Universities and embeds systems and process to facilitate and record examples of impact. Communicating impact in engaging ways will promote a sense of how research has managed to achieve impact, and provide us with information about typologies and pathways to feed into our processes and systems for capturing impact.

The summary outcomes are organised below into the following areas.

THE FUTURE/MANIFESTO

What does the ‘ideal’ look like, and what is stopping us from getting there? What would we like to see put in place (by funders/our institutions) What can we do (as individuals?) What can we do (collectively?)

The approach of the Research Impact Network is pragmatic, and focuses on some of the practical steps that we can take to improve our own practices. Whilst we posit below what the ‘ideal’ looks like, it is there as a prompt to start the discussion, identify what might be getting it the way and what initial steps we can take towards removing some of the those barriers. Some of these issues can form the basis for the future work of the Research Impact Network, in the form of future conferences, research projects, publications or good practice guides, but these topics are not exhaustive.

CULTURE CHANGE AND EMBEDDING IMPACTHow can we engender culture change within our institutions to embed impact through appropriate support and infrastructure and how can we reward and value impact within our institutions?

What does the ‘ideal’ look like?

We have a clear and unequivocal notion of what research impact is, such that we understand that it’s not just about the REF, but it is about the broader benefits of research and the difference it can make to individual lives, to society and the economy at regional, national and international level. Research is understood as worthwhile because it pursues these aims and as such is central to the mission of Higher Education institutions and the sector as a whole. The articulation of research impact therefore benefits institutions and the sector in numerous ways.

10

Academic colleagues understand what constitutes research impact. This assumes that we have a clear coherent notion across all stakeholders across the sector about what research impact means and how we are required to demonstrate it.

Senior managers within our institutions take seriously the need to maintain momentum for research impact post-REF. They provide leadership and infrastructure in support of ensuring that impact from research happens and is articulated.

A culture of enthusiasm for engagement and impact is engendered within a broader base of the academic community. Academic colleagues are also engaged in the process of the evaluation of research impact through the development of methodologies and new techniques.

What is stopping us from getting there?

Impact has become a (negatively) value-laden term which has alienated many. There is a tendency for it to be viewed and considered purely in terms of the REF reporting requirements. Now that submissions to the REF have concluded, interest and an imperative to ‘do impact’ is waning.

Research impact is no longer a strategic priority for some institutions/departments in the wake of the REF submission. We don’t know what the future of REF or research impact reporting looks like, so how can we plan for it?

What can institutions and funders do?

Institutions and funders need to look closely at reward and recognition for research impact and ensure that this is appropriately embedded to provide the imperative.

Institutions need to develop a better understanding about how the articulation of research impact, through case studies, can make a significant contribution towards demonstrating how Universities make a difference. Material from case studies could be used for PR, marketing or recruitment purposes, or more strategically in terms of making the case to Government for investing in research in Universities. This is an ongoing challenge, and not just linked to REF exercises.

Leadership within our institutions needs to bring together the key players in research engagement and impact, to ensure a coherent and strategic approach across the institution. There needs to be investment, infrastructure and seed-corn funding to develop the institution’s approach for facilitating and capturing research impact. Academic colleagues need to play a key role in the development of an impact strategy, ensuring that research interests are balanced against the requirements for demonstrating research impact.

HEFCE/Research Councils/RCUK need to provide examples of good case studies and exemplars of engagement and research impact and explain how institutional cultures and structures enabled it. This will be crucial following the publication of the REF results. There is a need for funders to work together to develop a common language which decouples research ‘impact’ from the REF case studies, and frames it more positively in terms of the broader benefits of research to people’s lives, to individuals, to different communities, to society and the economy at regional, national and international level.

What can we do as individuals?

11

Promote ‘Impact Awards’; either setting up competitions within our own institutions of encouraging applications to national competitions such as those organised by ESRC or Praxis Unico.

Working with ‘Impact Champions’ such as those whose work formed the basis for REF Impact Case Studies as a catalytic group to promote engagement and impact.

Finding creative ways of doing things, for example, commissioning journalism or media students to work on impact case studies, particularly where this provides opportunities for students and recent graduates to develop their skills and build up a portfolio. Be proactive in showcasing research using short videos or encouraging engagement with other arts or media.

Influence within our own institutions by being the drivers for culture change efforts and embed systems and processes for impact facilitation and capture.

What can we do collectively (as the Research Impact Network)?

Understand that whilst each institution may have different ways of approaching the impact agenda, there are opportunities for sharing best practice or developing a set of general principles or approaches. Future conferences and events will be structured with this in mind.

Be a collective voice for engaging in dialogue with Research Councils and HEFCE, conveying our challenges and the areas where more support is needed.

Conduct research and become a central repository for information about the processes involved in research impact.

Organise workshops or seminars with external ‘users’ of research (including, for example, policy makers and those involved in the commercialisation of research) in order to gain a more in-depth understanding of how they use academic expertise and research.

CAPTURING IMPACTWhat can we do to capture impact effectively using tools and technologies, such as research information management systems and how can we use this formation to evaluate the impact of research?

What does the ‘ideal’ look like?

All stakeholders understand the value of impact. Capturing information about it and evaluating it is routine and embedded.

A practical tool is available which appropriately captures information about impact. Appropriate reward and recognition for academic and professional staff and sufficient time

allotted in workload allocations to ensure that information is recorded regularly. There is coherence or a certain degree of uniformity across the HE sector in terms of a

common set of indicators [by discipline/Unit of Assessment/Panel Area] which are agreed by stakeholders such as RCUK and HEFCE.

A system or process to capture information will support the process of evidence capture rather than drive the agenda. We use this information to understand and articulate the broader benefits of the research rather than just ‘impact’ per se.

There is sufficient time to develop a stable and enduring system/process for capturing impact information.

12

What is stopping us from getting there?

A lack of co-ordination. Departments/faculties/institutions are all developing their own processes and systems which adds to the complexity and uncertainty over what constitutes ‘impact’.

There are different systems for recording information about research (projects and outputs) and information about impact which don’t necessarily talk to each other.

Impact does not necessarily fall neatly into funded projects or publications. Informal interactions don’t necessarily fall into easily identifiable projects or publications but

could potentially result in significant impact. Some institutions may have the resources and infrastructure to develop their own in-house

technologies and solutions whilst many others may be reliant on ‘off-the-peg’ solutions Existing ‘off-the-peg’ systems might not have caught up with the requirements for impact.

Both are evolving. A well-designed system may be only one piece of the jigsaw. It needs its users to

understand how to use it to best advantage and ensure that the data inputted to the system is appropriate and meaningful.

What can institutions and funders do?

Particularly for funders, early communications and consultation of requirements for impact reporting. Coherence around the nature of impact between HEFCE, the Research Councils and others such that systems and processes for capturing impact information can work for all funders.

Particularly for our institutions, provide leadership and support for systems and processes to capture impact. Understand that technology does not necessarily solve the problem in its own right but needs ongoing time commitment and buy-in to make it a success and ensure it is being used to the best advantage.

What can we do as individuals within our own institutions?

Develop an understanding of social-media, search-engine optimisation and altmetrics. Where systems are already in place, educate colleagues in their use such that the

information captured is appropriate and useful. Engage in dialogue with colleagues across the institution to ensure that the ‘end-users’ are listened to and are able to feed into the development of the system, making it easier to use and thereby reducing the burden as much as possible.

What can we do collectively (as the Research Impact Network)?

1) Share information and good practice about the type of information that we need in order to capture actual or potential impacts including: Structure Format Typologies Categories Templates

13

Proformas

Through research and conferences, develop a strategy or good practice guide with approaches to information capture around themes such as:

Who captures this information, and who uses it?

What type of information is useful and how does it contribute to the narrative articulation of impact? How can we link impact to outputs or activities? What are the indicators of impact (actual or potential?)

How much information is enough? How can we extract information and use it in a meaningful way to tell the story of the impact of research. How do our ‘impact information’ systems talk to other systems [CRIS/Research Outputs Repositories?]

Why do we capture this information and what is it useful for beyond the REF. What other purposes does it have (e.g. PR/student recruitment)? How can we use this information to articulate the broader benefits of research to different communities and to the media?

Where is this information captured? (By individuals, UoAs, departments, University Central Administration, Sector, Funding Councils).

When do we capture this information? Are we looking at potential or actual impact? [What are the indicators of potential impact?] When is a good time in the course of the research to begin capturing this information in relation to a specific activity or impact?

COMMUNICATING IMPACTWhat are the key principles for communicating impact and how can we make the best use of our REF impact case studies?

What does the ‘ideal’ look like?

Institutions will be able to articulate the broader benefits of research in a variety of creative ways using difference media as appropriate to reach different types of audience.

Communicating impact becomes part of a ‘virtuous circle’ of activity. Examples of research impact can be used as Marketing/PR. Case studies illustrate the ways in which research impact is facilitated and evaluated and contribute to making the case for external funding for research from a variety of different sources.

What is stopping us from getting there?

There are resource implications and skills needed for developing material about research and its impact which are suitable for a broad range of audiences. Time and specialist skills and expertise are needed to be able to do this effectively.

In terms of the REF, we don’t yet know what is perceived to be a ‘good’ example of impact. We have yet to find out what counts as 4* in terms of reach and significance, and how that conclusion is reached so there is hesitancy about publicising case studies as ‘exemplars’.

14

What can institutions and funders do?

Bring together different professional functions within Universities (e.g. Communications/Marketing/PR professionals working together with research offices) to work on improving impact case studies.

Institutions’ and Funders’ Press Offices and Communications Professionals need to work collaboratively with academics and impact officers to agree the text for publication and ensure that the story of impact is told accurately.

HEFCE/Research Councils/RCUK need to provide examples of good case studies and exemplars of engagement and research impact and explain how institutional cultures and structures enabled it. This will be crucial following the publication of the REF results. There is a need for funders to work together to develop a common language which decouples research ‘impact’ from the REF case studies, and frames it more positively in terms of the broader benefits of research to people’s lives, to individuals, to different communities, to society and the economy at regional, national and international level.

What can we do as individuals within our own institutions?

Collect material for case studies on a routine basis (not just for the REF). Keep a stock of case studies which could be used for promotional purposes or to celebrate the work of researchers (e.g. as part of an anniversary or festival).

Develop stronger relationships with the editors of online publications which draw heavily on academic research (e.g. The Conversation UK). Look for opportunities to publish case studies which link to current news stories.

Involve beneficiaries or end users of the research in the case studies. Showcase stories about research impact on University websites and produce brochures or glossy publications as appropriate which can be circulated to external audiences to generate interest.

What can we do collectively (as the Research Impact Network)?

An event to showcase creative and effective ways of communicating research impact, possibly featuring a ‘trade-fair’ of communications professionals who can offer a range of innovative ways of working with impact narratives (including writers, documentary makers, artists, animators).

Produce a good practice guide (in collaboration with key stakeholders in the sector, such as HEFCE/RCUK/Research Councils) which identifies the key elements of good case studies for publication, e.g. emphasising the key benefits of the research and how it has made a difference; working within a set work limit; writing style; layout and use of graphics.

15

THE FUTURE/MANIFESTO: Summary tableCulture Change: Embedding Impact Capturing Impact Communicating Impact

What does the ‘ideal’ look like?

Clear and unequivocal notion of ‘impact’ which is not just about REF.Academic colleagues understand what constitutes ‘impact’.Senior managers provide leadership and infrastructure.Engagement and enthusiasm is engendered within a broader base of the academic community.

All stakeholders understand the value of impactPractical tool to support, rather than drive impact captureCoherence/common set of indicatorsStability over time to develop enduring systems/processes

Institutions can articulate the broader benefits of research in ways which are appropriate to different audiences.A ‘virtuous circle’ of activity where impact case studies are beneficial to other areas of the University and can be used to attract future funding.

What is stopping us from getting there?

Impact is perceived negatively and narrowly in terms of the REF reporting requirements.Impact is no longer a strategic priority now that institutions have completed their submissions for REF 2014.

Lack-of-co-ordination. Too many different systems/processes.Potential for impact not necessarily identifiable as a project/publication.Technological solutions not keeping up with requirements for impact.Technological solution requires commitment and understanding in order to use it appropriately.

Resources and skills needed to be able to craft impact case studies effectively.We are yet to discover what a ‘good’ REF Impact Case study looks like.

What would we like to see put in place by our institutions/funders?

Appropriate reward and recognition.Case studies are used in numerous ways including marketing and recruitment.Institutions have coherent impact strategies which involve colleagues (academic and other professionals) across the institution.HEFCE/Research Councils use impact case studies to promote the broader benefits of research.

Early communication and consultation with regard to impact reporting requirements.Coherence around the nature of ‘impact’ between HEFCE and Research Councils.Leadership and support for implementing systems and processes to capture impact.

Bring together communications professionals with research offices and academic colleagues to work on impact case studies.HEFCE/Research Councils use impact case studies to promote the broader benefits of research.

16

What can we do within our own institutions?

Promote ‘impact awards’. Either establish competitions within our own institutions or encourage applications to national competitions such as those organised by ESRC or PraxisUnico.Work with Impact Champions as a catalytic group to promote engagement/impact.Finding creative solutions (e.g. media students working on impact case studies).Influencing upwards and being the drivers for change.

Increase knowledge of social media, search-engine optimisation and altmetrics.Educate colleagues in the use of impact capture systems.

Collect material for case studies on a more routine basis (not just for the REF).Develop relationships with editors of online publications such as ‘The Conversation UK’.Involve beneficiaries and end users of the research in case studies.Showcase research impact stories via a range of media, including websites and brochures.

What can we do collectively? (As the Research Impact Network)

1) Future conferences will create opportunities for sharing good practice and developing general principles or approaches.2) Become a collective voice for working with HEFCE and the Research Councils.3) Conduct research and be a central repository for information about research impact.4) Engage external ‘users’ or beneficiaries in our events.

1) Share information about good practice/approaches to capturing impact related information. This could include a conference, research project and a ‘good-practice’ publication.2) Work with providers/developers of CRIS: develop a comprehensive set of requirements.

1) Event to explore creative ways of communicating research impact (including writers, documentary makers, artists, animators).2) Good practice guide identifying key elements of good case studies.

17