Impact News
We know there is lots going on out there and it's hard to keep track!
Here we share news, webinars, training, or anything else impact-related we think potentially useful.
Like many other organisations across the science system, iPEN is adapting and transitioning to a new operating model. While iPEN will be continuing as a network committed to our core vision around 'turbocharging impact' we are gearing down some of our activities. As part of putting a 'full stop' at the end of this chapter or our work, we've summarised a bit more about who we are and what we have achieved over the last 5 years for the history record. WHO IS IPEN AND WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING?Since 2014 New Zealand’s 7 Crown Research Institutes have collaborated on an innovative network to support our collective capability and capacity to deliver more impact from our science and research: The Impact Planning and Evaluation Network iPEN. In 2019 iPEN scaled up its efforts to turbocharge research impact by engaging specialist advisory support and ramped up our activities. This included the design and delivery of a tailored workshop series free of charge to any staff in any of our CRIs, a webinar series (which we will transfer to our new YouTube channel) to share other insights in learnings from how to best support research impact, a newsletter, website, and the development of other tools and resources. iPEN has also responded to gaps in our knowledge around how to best support research impact and undertook two targeted projects to address these gaps. The first used systems thinking to examine the systemic barriers and opportunities for delivering research impact in New Zealand’s RSI system. The second has seen the production of new guidance material regarding impact pathways to give practical advice to anyone who wants to know how to successfully navigate the research valley of death. The outputs of these projects have been powerful. The conceptual frameworks and explanations we’ve developed continue to be referred to and referenced by others in our system when identifying and explaining what interventions are needed, where, and why. iPEN’s collegial network has also expanded and strengthened over time, in particular with KiwiNet and our university colleagues via URONZ (University Research Offices of New Zealand), as well as with various government agencies with an interest in Research Impact. Through our engagement with these colleagues as we tested and developed our systemic barriers and enablers paper, and later our impact pathways guidance material, it was clear that our mantra that “research impact is a team sport” was a view understood and shared by us all. Together we committed to ‘teaming up’ more, which most culminated in us co-hosting an inaugural Aotearoa Research Impact Community of Practice (ARICOP) in Wellington, November 2023 (click here to read the write up). The quality and value of iPEN and its work has been recognised by international leaders in research impact, including Professor Mark Reed and David Phipps. what have we achieved?iPEN's scope of work has included a set of ongoing capability and capacity building activities - our training workshops, our webinar series, our website, and our newsletter - as well as a number of one-off more in-depth pieces of work. These have included our work examining barriers and enablers or research impact, the impact pathways work, and organising cross-sector hui which have evolved into the ARICoP - the Aotearoa New Zealand Research Impact Community of Practice. Since launching our workshops in late 2020, we have run 56 training workshops, delivered 30 free webinars (which have reached 1,636 registrants - including over 30 non-CRI organisations) and a global reach with our newsletter which has over 1,500 subscribers. The quality of our work, including the testimonials of the impact these have had on our colleagues has been incredibly gratifying and motivating. What's Changing?We are returning to being a collegial network only With the current changes occurring across New Zealand government and our system our sponsors (the Science New Zealand Board of directors) have reviewed our activities and have opted to scale down some of our more resource intensive work. In a nutshell, this means our free workshop programme, webinar series, and newsletters have finished for the time being, as well as some of our more intensive engagement with colleagues across the system on specific projects aimed at wider capability and capacity building. But iPEN will continue. One of the greatest successes of iPEN has been building a broader network of colleagues across our organisations sitting in a wide range of roles who are all committed to supporting research impact. The value of consistent messages, tools, and approaches; and sharing learnings with each other that helps build our understanding of what it takes to deliver great research impact remains as relevant as ever, as it benefits everyone. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR OUR WORK PROGRAMME?No more workshops, webinar, newsletters, or specialist support but all our tools and resources and our network continue!
We have been in a transition phase this year, as we have move to a model of operation that is less focused on hands-on support and more back to our now strengthened roots where we focus on sharing via collegial discussions. While our workshop program has finished, all our materials remain, and each CRI still has these at their disposal to deliver training internally to their staff. Our website will also stay active, and we will continue to encourage people to refer to this as it is a repository for our tools and resources, contains lots of useful information and refers people to many other hugely valuable resources made freely available by others. Feel free to use and share this content widely. We have also said goodbye to Kara Scally-Irvine (KSI Consulting) and Chanel Partridge who helped transform our lawn-mower engine to something more like a V8. We are enormously grateful for the commitment and passion for research impact they have brought to our mahi. The iPEN team is hugely proud of the work we have done to date. Our award win last year for our work remains a testament of the quality and value of what has been done. Although iPEN is changing once again closer to its configuration when it first established itself, the commitment to supporting research impact through collaboratively building our collective capability and capacity remains, just in a slightly different format. If you work in a CRI, you should contact your iPEN rep if you are interested to learn anything more about what has been communicated here.
0 Comments
iPEN's resources on impact pathways are finally here!
Although it has been slow going (like the gestation of an elephant....) we have been working away on finalising our impact pathways resources this year. Due to the changes that have been occurring across the science system, including to iPEN ourselves, we have developed these resources to 'stand alone' - i.e., to be useful and usable by as many across our system without further input or guidance from iPEN (e.g. webinars or training). The resources include a document introducing key diagrams and tools for impact pathways, a definitions document, and an 'explainer' video series, to walk people through what impact pathways are, how the conceptual framework we've developed is intended to be used, and most importantly, HOW to build them into research projects and programmes. We've made the diagrams we've developed freely available for others to use, to support the kind of consistency in understanding and practice that the sector that both iPEN and our colleagues cross the system are keen to support. To access all these resources, visit our iPEN Resources. The Impact Pathways explainer video series can be found on our new iPEN You Tube channel. Please feel free to use and share these resources widely. Feel free to contact us if you are interested to learn more about what has been communicated here. iPEN, the pan-CRI Impact, Planning and Evaluation Network has won a prestigious award in Australia!
We are thrilled that the team’s work in focusing on how we ‘turbocharge’ research impact by building capacity and capability through online training, webinars, a newsletter and website has been recognised by the Australian Evaluation Society with the Excellence in Evaluation Systems Award. iPEN’s impact and evaluation specialist Kara Scally-Irvine accepted the award on iPEN’s behalf at the AES conference gala dinner in Brisbane in late September. The award recognises the development of an exemplary integrated evaluation system and/or implementation of the evaluation system. This is only the third time in the AES's 40 years that a New Zealand effort has been recognised by this award. Kara also noted that "what was particularly pleasing was the endorsement we got from global leaders in this award, which included Professor Gerald Midgley, David Phipps, and Professor Mark Reed". iPEN Chair, Manaaki Whenua’s Ross Laurence says the award acknowledges what has “truly been a collaborative effort from passionate individuals across all seven of CRIs. A group of people who were open, sharing of ideas and experiences, and willing to go the extra mile for each other. It has proved the value of trust and true collaboration across organisations.” IPEN sponsor, AgResearch CEO Sue Bidrose says it’s great recognition of the work to improve how our scientists think about planning for, monitoring, and providing evidence of outcomes, of impact. “It’s fantastic to see the results of the work in action. People are using it and referring to it, saying ‘this is how we think about, conceptualise and deliver research.” Anyone who has attended our Communicating your Impact module will know just how deep this subject actually goes, and that doing this well requires a bit of careful planning. Our science and research training means that we are great at thinking about the audience of our peers, but forging effective pathways to impact means forging connections with a much more diverse number of audiences who have very different needs. iPEN's recent webinar featuring Hannah McKercher and George Slim highlighted some great examples of this if your audience is policy makers. For example the templates that Hannah has developed have been tailored specifically as 'A3s' which are routinely used around government to summarise and share information to people who have very little time to read further. Recently some great new resources have been launched, which make a great addition to the toolkit. Scroll on to find out more! The SCICOMM LAUNDROMAT - helping you 'take a load off' ![]() The Scicomm Laundromat is a great new resource that spun out of PhD research supported by Te Pūhana Matatini, one of the Centres of Research Excellence (CoRES). Te Pūhana Matatini applies complexity science and inter- and transdisciplinary approaches to try and address the challenging issues we are currently facing. This website has lots of practical advice, examples, and resources that we encourage you to check out. They have really clear instructions taking you through the 'cycle' and anyone who's been involved with any co-design process will see how this kind of approach has been used. There are really clear step-by-step instructions taking all the guess work out of how to use these resources including instructional videos on how to construct the washing machine! The resources don't refer to programme logics as a tool to help you think through some of the steps. Don't forget to use this too, as it will help 'turbocharge' your scicomm wash cycle thinking. Victoria University has created this complete FREE self-paced online science communications course, funded by the Prime Minister's Science Communications Prize.
" You will hear from experienced communicators such as Siouxsie Wiles, Shaun Hendy and Rebecca Priestley. They will share their personal science communication journeys and give advice on how to enter the field. You will also learn about the current issues facing Aotearoa’s dynamic science communication community, through videos on topics such as communicating with Māori audiences, the ethics of science communication, and the importance of engaging media and policymakers in science issues." They estimate it will take you 6 - 10 hours to work through the course. Click here to find out more and to register. On Valentines day, iPEN invited a range of representatives working across the Research Science and Innovation sector to talk about supporting impact from research for the first of what will hopefully be some semi-regular 'catch-ups'. COVID, working from home, and our group's work plan had meant that our focus had been fairly inwardly focused, especially as we worked on analysis systemic barriers and enablers of impact. We used our report to kick start the discussion, asking those who had gathered both in person or online whether our findings resonated with them, and if there were opportunities to collaborate where we had shared interest to support the sector's impact. What did we find out?Our hui participants said that our findings resonated with their own experiences of what helps or hinders research impact. We talked a lot about how both discourse and experience reinforce that supporting impact is a 'team sport' (a recurring theme also identified in the recent SfTī report - click here for our post on this last month) and the efficiency and effectiveness of taking a consistent approach across the sector wherever possible. Having an opportunity to come together and discuss what we are all doing was much appreciated, and together we identified a range of tangible opportunities and actions we could progress to work collaboratively and in a more joined up manner. What now?iPEN is already starting to progress some of these actions, and we hope to share more of the fruits from this collective mahi in the months to come. This will include future invitations to discuss with others who missed this time around. Click here if you'd like to read the full summary of our discussion (only 3 pages), as well as the agenda and list of who attended. If you're interested to find out more about what we discussed feel free to get in touch too. Recently the Science for Technological Innovation National Science Challenge published a report summarizing findings from one of their longitudinal pieces of research – exploring how to build the capacity of New Zealand’s innovation system. This informative report does a really good job at summarizing some of the key trends that have occurred overseas, and then outlines four key trends, before detailing their findings. What jumped out at us? The whole report is worth a read if you have time, but what jumped out for us in particular was their reflection that ‘traditional science’ is no longer sufficient to address todays challenges, and the shift to ‘mode 2’ ‘post-normal’ science required a different combination of people, skills, and approaches. “Despite their significant differences, addressing missions and global challenges require individuals, teams and organizations to operate across multiple modes.” (p. 17 emphasis original). They note (trend 3) that New Zealand’s unique bi-cultural context has already set us on this journey, but they also note that this comes with many challenges and constraints and summaries many of the key issues, from the effectiveness of diversity policies, challenges associated with protecting indigenous knowledge and data sovereignty, and the challenges associated with genuinely supporting Måori researchers. Their expanded typology of roles a researcher or scientist we found particularly useful as it clearly and succinctly describes some of the key mindsets and behaviours different ‘types’ of researcher use, and what this means for where and how they might engage with industry (see below, on page 25), and talk about how individuals (and organisation) might need to shift between modes. Impact (including innovation) is a team sport This report coincided with our own systems analysis of the barriers and enablers of impact. We were happy to read that our own findings are consistent and complementary. We also reflected on the different ‘tone’ of the report findings which we would attribute to their application of systems thinking to this work. The importance of considering things like values and norms is a clear example of how considering mindsets is a useful way to unpack why we see what we see. One area that this report complements iPEN’s own systems analysis (and our experience in supporting researcher) is that impact (including innovation) can only be achieved through the efforts of many. The report identified the importance of integrative capacity and critical role ‘intermediaries’ play. These intermediaries can be people, groups, and organizations, they may hold this role either explicitly or implicitly, and play a central role in ‘brokering’ and boundary spanning. We thought it was especially helpful how the barriers to effectively engaging was linked to tensions and differences in things like norms, values and industry. In our own training we encourage researchers to try and ‘empathise’ with their collaborators, which is all about trying to better understand their values, language, and pain points. It was refreshing to see the report highlight that researchers aren’t binary and that instead many have multi-personalities / identities. Recognizing that researchers have complex interests and drivers means better teams can be assembled, where peoples skills and talents can be leveraged in ways that complement others. “Intermediaries at all levels are crucial to a well-functioning science-based open innovation system” Our own analysis highlighted the absolutely fundamental role trust and partnerships play. SfTI’s findings reinforce and complement this, and express how this is achieved through the lens of roles actors play in the system.
We loved reading the report and we’re now looking at ways we can forge our own opportunities to integrated with SfTI and other NSCs to share learnings and insights like these. Only got 5 minutes? We suggest reading pages 8 – 9 as a great starting place where the key questions and summary of actions are outlined. The four global research trends are summarized on pages 17 – 27. The full observations, findings and insights are on pages 28 onwards. The fundamentals of achieving impact from research, is getting the knowledge and information that is contained (usually) in academic research publications into the hands and heads of the next and end user - the people who can start applying that knowledge. This means a different audience, and with that a need to change how you’re communicating, so you’re speaking their language. As researchers, a key audience for us are policy makers. They might be involved in operational policy (setting rules and guidelines for how things get done), or strategic policy which is much more about setting the overall rules of the game (like legislation). In either case, someone who works in policy needs the ‘so what’ bits of your research provided to them in as short but comprehensive a way as possible.
What’s great about this resource is Hannah has developed two short explanatory videos, and included some really helpful completed examples, where you can see how the tips play out when summarising a real piece of research. All the templates and videos can be found here. We suggest watching the second video first. In this video they talk about a number of the kinds of challenges and issues we also talk about in our own training, and is a helpful reminder that these are the kinds of challenges anyone working in research experiences. Although you can find the full guide here, we suggest you download and review the DELTA example first. In this example you can see exactly how they’ve completed the policy brief with two additional pages of explanation. The CellAg example then shows another example of a completed brief. What is really helpful with both these examples is they’ve been drafted as what is the classic ‘one-pager’. Anyone who’s worked in or with government knows that if you can’t summarize it on an A3 page, you’re probably going to loose your audience, so these are a particularly helpful resource for the New Zealand context. Nearly four years ago iPEN changed from being a group of colleagues talking about how to help their organisations deliver research impact, to the more formal programme of work you can see today. However before embarking on developing the shared tools, resources and training that is now iPEN's 'core' focus, we were advised to first understand what the 'current state' was across our organisations. This involved our expert adviser conducting a dizzying number of interviews (over 100!) with staff across all seven of our organisations, and we also circulated a survey which provided us with even more rich information from the 100s of responses we had to that. We discovered that many of our scientists knew what research impact is, and were highly motivated to deliver it - many commented that was why the became scientists in the first place - what they struggled with was understanding HOW to do it. However it also became clear from the feedback that there were some others things they felt were getting in the way of impact, but the roots of these ran deeper than just a lack of skills or resources. Fast forward two years - with our training programme up and running - we decided to return to this information to see if we could learn more about these challenges so we could see if there were things iPEN could do help. We did a systems analysisThis time we took a 'systems view' as we are fortunate to have a couple of team members with expertise in systems thinking who observed that the kinds of challenges that had been described had much more complex 'roots', and so our work began in earnest, speaking with researchers and scientists who were recognised as have had impact, about what had helped and hindered them. Along the way we workshopped what was emerging with wider colleagues across the RSI system to check if what we had identified resonated with them, and also to check if our analysis and opportunities for action made sense. Completely coincidentally Te Ara Pairangi was launched, so we have also been sharing our findings and thinking to MBIE, through including making a submission and also inviting them to join workshops we ran during 2022. so what did we learn?First we learned that doing a systems analysis is indeed a messy and intellectually challenging process. It was tough to realise 'solutions' are a misnomer in systems (indeed this is a symptom of 'simplistic linear thinking') and that we needed to think about where change might be useful, using out deeper understanding of how things interacted to guide this intellectual detective work. Notwithstanding the challenge and the 'mess' there were some themes that came through in our analysis loud and clear as either supporting, or slowing down our delivery of impact. The importance of relationships was identified time and time again. These trusted relationships, built between individuals over time, act very much like mortar between bricks - helping to stick bits of science together giving these 'pipelines' of work strength and resilience. We heard that research impact required a whole range of other activities that sit outside/beyond the margins so what is traditionally considered doing science, but these invisible or unseen activities are in fact critical to the process of delivering impact. We've called this the 'impact creation cycle' and mapped it against the iceberg concept to explain how the current system operates. Perverse or competing incentives in the system's design was also talked about, and these are experienced at a global level. For example given limited time, scientists described the 'forced choice' to focus on publications over other 'impactful' activities as these were part of the contract, and support career progression (this challenge is now routinely being identified globally). In total we identified seven interconnecting themes, which expands to even more when considering what achieving impact might look like from a Te Ao Māori perspective. The full summary of our findings can be found by clicking here, as well as the companion report identifying where opportunities for action lie. While we've now learned that 'solutions' are not what we should be looking for, we found the application of 'leverage points' from the systems literature a powerful way to really understand where change could be more or less effective and WHY. so what now?iPEN's mahi is focused on acting, and supporting the HOW of science. So what actions are we taking now?
We are in the early stages of figuring out what next, but sharing our findings and the opportunities for action is one important first step. We are also now taking the conversation wider, with a hui organised with a wider collection of colleagues across the system to share and discuss this work. As we say in our 'Making Sense of Impact' webinar, impact is a collective endeavour, so we'll keep you posted on what collective efforts might eventuate as we take our conversation wider.
We know that this time of year is pretty busy for our CRI staff, so we’ve tried to pick the eyes out of some of the insights we heard that are relevant to our context. If you’re keen to do your own deep-dive into the content, you can check out the programme for this year here, and find out more about the speakers here. If you want to sign up for your own access, become a Research Impact Academy member here. Here is our summary of each of the four speakers we have included. Scroll down further for full details:
Finding great collaborators who can help visually communicate messages has been important – at the start of the pandemic – when she saw a key message about flattening the curve that she felt could be more effectively communicated - she simply emailed a cartoonist she thought would do a great job and ‘the rest is history’. Her partnership with Toby Morris through the pandemic under creative commons has seen their cartoons picked up worldwide, even making their way into WHO advisory material. Another person built a website that could automatically translate their cartoons into any language, this saw their science communication reach even further. Siouxsie spoke honestly about the fact that sometimes scientists aren’t always the right messenger, and how important trust is when it comes to people really listening to what the evidence is telling us. Improving our science communication directly can certainly help build this trust, but sometimes the right approach is to instead work with others who can relay the messages. “Science is no good when it is separated from people”, and she noted that because scientists are part of society, it's not just important we learn to talk, but it's also important that we learn to listen, so we can focus on the problems people would like us to study.
“Many researchers retire without translating. You can have multiple papers in Nature or Science, and of course basic research is important but that translation is more important. At the end when I am in my deathbed I want to go away leaving a legacy. Chamindie spoke of a pragmatic approach to how she has pursued her research, which has been driven by a deep commitment to democratising access to health care. She noted, with some irony, that her research which looks at biomarkers in saliva and other body fluids has progressed with support from industry – which she has quite deliberately focused on and nurtured – rather than public funding. Her first public health grants have only come since the pandemic struck. She also offered some really interesting reflections on the care that needs to be taken if any research is progressed down the commercialisation route. She described how many institutional models use the old fashioned approach to adoption – where the baby is handed over, with no further involvement from the mother and parents. She thinks this approach has real flaws, which means the universities or institutes can actually lose out on the return on their investment when they take the researchers out of the picture, who are usually the best places to fully understand the potential of their discovery.
He and his colleagues applied an approach we at iPEN love to champion – using the KISS principle to keep it simple – and explore if they could ‘unpack’ how you do impactful research in order to develop simple tools for researchers. Through their research they applied the Kipling method (often called the six Ws –who, what, where, when, why and how), to see if they could tease out what led to impact. They came up with what is effectively a research impact diagnostic tool bydeveloping an initial set of criteria and testing the process against research with recognised impact (initially with Emerald publishing real impact award winners, and then impact case studies from the REF - Research Excellence Framework). You can complete the diagnosis for free here (just scroll down to the bottom of the page, or click on this link). He noted that people are often a bit disappointed with their results because we often lack the training to be properly impactful. But he emphasised that the tool has been developed specifically to then help direct you to behaviours and actions that supports more impactful research – what he called the ‘missing research curriculum’. Soon they will publish a ‘Research Impact Playbook’ which will help fill this missing curriculum, through the provision of tools and other approaches to help researchers strengthen the behaviours and actions they’ve found underpin impact. You can subscribe for updates on their website.
He described how these kinds of assessment processes codify explicit knowledge – the kind of knowledge that can be easily converted into numbers,words and concrete artifacts – that lend themselves to being used as evidence of impact.
He noted that any assessment framework that is structured around demonstrating proof of impact in this way privileges explicit knowledge over tacit knowledge – the kind of knowledge that is all about practice and ‘know how’. He said instead of assessment frameworks focusing on the easy to measure things at the tip of the iceberg, we needed to instead focus on the underlying knowledge and conditions that are required for impact. This is much harder to see and to measure – but critical to understand if we are serious about impact. By Sudesh Sharma and Suzanne Manning - ESR Social Systems Team Crown research institutes (CRIs) are government-owned companies that do scientific research for the benefit of Aotearoa New Zealand. There are seven CRIs in Aotearoa, which were set up to lead research and science that address New Zealand’s pressing issues and achieve economic, social and environmental impact. For example, ESR is the CRI that plays a critical national role in health, food safety, groundwater, radiation and forensic sciences, and is a key contributor to public health, environment and biosecurity outcomes. While each CRI is focused on its core areas of science and research, the end goal for all of them is to create positive impact for society. A recent review called CRIs an indispensable part of the science system but said there were concerns that there is no mechanism to evaluate the research impact of CRIs. How can CRIs, the government and the public know whether CRIs are being successful if there is no rigorous process to assess the societal benefits? The Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), the steward and major funder of CRIs, has recently shifted its focus to investing in research that has potential for social, economic and environmental impact. MBIE wants government funded science to have a clear and strong “line of sight to impact” and has been encouraging CRIs to use a logic model framework (Figure 1) to show this “line of sight”. Using consistent language in logic models helps to compare and evaluate across CRIs, and to focus on impact. Figure 1. MBIE's definitions of key elements of a logic model framework for research impact Of course, there are challenges to creating “line of sight to impact”. One challenge is limited concrete mechanisms for measuring impact. Most CRI monitoring and evaluation indicators have been output level measures (e.g. knowledge and skills) and sometimes outcome level measures (e.g. policy influence), but it is difficult to measure the impact of the science out in the community. It does not help that community and society impact of research tends to be incremental and over the long term, in direct contrast to funding mechanisms that have short time frames and pre-set deliverables. These funding mechanisms have arisen from neoliberal approaches that promote competition between CRIs, a “contract for services” approach, and a requirement for CRIs to generate commercial benefits from science. A focus on impact would require change at both the MBIE/policy level – determining science priorities, creating longer time frames, flexible resourcing for developing and maintaining collaborative relationships, willingness to allow a research agenda to develop in consultation with communities – and at the CRI/science level – explicit mechanisms for measuring impact, focus on authentic and reciprocal relationships, commitment to allow a research agenda to develop in consultation with communities. Another challenge is the traditional approach to Western science that divides research projects and funding into separate disciplines. Yet increasingly it is being recognised that transdisciplinary and collaborative science research projects have the potential to yield greater impact, by addressing the bigger, more complex problems using a variety of different disciplines. This requires collaborative working not only within a like-minded research team, but between researchers with very different perspectives, and even completely different worldviews as when partnering with kaupapa Māori researchers. Most importantly, social science could be a bridge among multiple knowledge systems in an Aotearoa context. There has also traditionally been a difference in status between science based on ‘things’ versus science based on ‘people’. Yet this is a false distinction, as there are important roles for social science (science with people) especially when considering the societal impact of research and innovation. Social science contributes not only to assessing impact of science on communities, but also ensuring beneficial impact of science for communities through input to the research agenda, collaboration while undertaking research, and feedback and sense-making of results. A question to be asked is: given it is relatively well established that complex problems require holistic, transdisciplinary approaches, why have we not focused our science system to operate in this way? One explanation can be found in the systems dynamics archetype of “Shifting the Burden”, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Shifting the Burden archetype. Solid lines with + signs indicate a causal effect in an increasing direction. Dotted lines with - signs indicate causal effect in a decreasing direction. Interruptions to the lines indicate a delayed effect This causal loop diagram explains what happens when there are two competing options for fixing it: either apply a short-term fix that addresses the symptoms only or identify and apply a longer term fix to the underlying issue itself. In the diagram, the top balancing loop is the short-term fix, where mono-disciplinary ‘hard’ science solutions are sought to remove the symptoms, resulting in less symptoms but only temporarily.
The bottom balancing loop addresses the problem in all its complexity, using transdisciplinary approaches and being informed by mātauranga Māori. However, it is the more difficult option and takes a longer time before the impact is seen. More resources get put into the piecemeal science approach because that is what gets the ‘quick wins’, and consequently undermines efforts to address the roots of the complex problem. As a result, a reinforcing addiction loop is formed because the burden of fundamental fix is too hard and business as usual continues. For example, one of the key performance indicators for CRIs is peer-reviewed publications. They are considered evidence of success and good publication records support scientists to get more research funding. However, publications are simply outputs, not impacts. There is no equivalent recognition given for outputs of relationships and transdisciplinary collaboration that can generate genuine societal impact. The Shifting the Burden archetype could also be called the “frustrating” archetype for those who are working in the science impact space. The way out of this trap is for courageous and bold systems leadership across the system, where a plan for science, research and technology is developed that has an intergenerational view of impact, a transdisciplinary approach, and is underpinned by mātauranga Māori. Why do this? Because arguably the current approaches are not solving our complex problems. And if nothing changes – then nothing will change. |
AuthoriPEN is a collaboration across all seven Crown Research Institutes in New Zealand. We're a collection of colleagues all working towards supporting greater impact from our science and research. Archives
December 2024
Categories
All
|