Impact, ‘grimpact’, and what you can do

Have you ever thought about how your work may be perceived and what you can do to ensure positive outcomes are realised? 

 Mark Reed (Fast Track Impact and SRUC) and Hannah Rudman (SRUC) recently raised this very topic in a recent article in Sustainability Science. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-022-01216-w
 
Many of you will now be quite familiar with the concept of impact – benefits (desired changes) resulting from our work, or their potential realisation. By and large we refer to these benefits as occurring beyond academia. 

 But these benefits also have an ‘evil twin’. Some colloquially refer to this as ‘grimpact’ - negative consequences resulting from our work, or their potential realisation. 

 But, who gets to determine what an impact (benefit) is, and why? 
 
Different groups may perceive the same outcomes as either positive or negative, while even “…the same group may perceive an outcome very differently in a different time or changed context”. 
 Reed and Rudman point out:

“It is especially important to recognise this subjectivity... in cases where potential beneficiaries have historically been marginalised or delegitimised by researchers and other more powerful actors as part of a knowledge system that is centred around academic privilege”. 

So then, is our work enabling or perpetuating injustices and inequities? 

It is widely accepted that ongoing appropriate engagement with such groups from conceptualisation of research through to pursuit of outcomes mitigates against the risk of negative consequences being realised or perceived. 

For us in New Zealand we've had somewhat of a head start on these sorts of considerations, as we try to better honour Te Tiriti. Many of us now understand and have experienced that what 'good' looks like very much depends on who you are, where you stand, and the power (or lack thereof) that comes with the 'who'.

But then how should you design your research? By thinking about your DESIGN, and your POSITIONALITY

DESIGN: The authors identify three important considerations for successful research impact design:

• Context
• Voice
• Power

This is all about thinking systematically about who's voices should be in the room and represented, for your particular project or programme, and including them from the get-go.

​While the authors recognise this comes with challenges (particularly in making the time necessary for relationships to be forged so they can and will be 'present') they note:
​

“By not adequately understanding and accounting for the three considerations described … projects risk delivering unintended negative impacts, or no impact at all.”
​

POSITIONALITY: ​An important related matter they also point out is that, despite your best efforts, as a researcher you have considerable influence on the shape and perception of your research.

They then go on to lay bare their identities to provide the reader context, in what some (not me) may find uncomfortable reading. 

Uncomfortable or not, this is useful because it welcomes us to understand the research in relation to its authors in their time, additionally outlining its limitations. It also disperses some of the accountability for the validity or success of the research away from the authors by laying bear some of the (less obvious) factors that may have influenced it.

Failure to understand, respond to, and account for the scope, limitations, and shape of your work unhelpfully biases it, and may lead to unintended consequences such as inaccurate assumptions, poor decision making, or perpetuated injustices. 
​

So, how can you (and we all) integrate these three considerations around context, voice, and power, along with an awareness of your own positionality to better ensure durable beneficial outcomes (impacts) being realised from your work?