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:

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:
​

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. 
​

​We noticed many of our colleagues talking about the critical importance of acknowledging and reflecting “place” in evaluation practice. There was also a much more pronounced focus on what good evaluative practice looks like when working with indigenous communities.  And finally, there was an almost unashamed focus on values. While ‘values’ are literally at the heart of the e[VALUE]ation profession, the strength of presentations and workshops around this concept also jumped out at us (including a whole day workshop!)

​So what does this all mean for us?

​These repeating messages about place and values (especially exemplified when considering what good practice looks like when working with indigenous communities) highlighted and reminded us about the importance of acknowledging that the context in which our work happens is huge. It is the main factor that determines what is most important (valued) and for who, and therefore what outcomes and impacts are of greatest interest to “target” when planning any monitoring and evaluation activity.

“What matters and for whom” is a question that is routinely posed and at the core of evaluative practice. This question is all about seeking to understand the context, and consequently the values, of the people, actors, entities, and organisations who have an interest, or role to play, in a given project or programme.

This is equally valid to ask for our science projects and programmes. Impact is a human construct –  by definition it is talking about change. How we judge that – good, bad or otherwise – is completely dependent on the values within that context.

For us, our starting point is MBIE. Their Position Paper on the Impact of Research tells us to look at things like the Living Standards Framework as a starting point. However, this lacks any nuance around how much attention should be given to those big ‘categories’.

Just as we would expect (and require) our schools and hospitals to adapt the education and health care they provide to meet the needs of the local area, this is also needed for our science. While we do “get it” in theory (i.e. not all science can, or should, be commercialised), we don’t often challenge ourselves to do this more systematically. We don’t often ask our ourselves, “what’s going on for our stakeholders, partners, and collaborators? What do they care about? What’s the problem they need solving, and what contribution can we make to addressing this?”

Asking these questions gets to the heart of the matter and that is where the love lies. It’s all about what is cared about (valued) in that particular context, and consequently, the kind of difference (impact) you could make.

The good news!

​Taking time to really engage with the context and values your science is located in doesn’t have to be difficult or time consuming. We know from our training that you often have many of the “answers”, its just having the right tools and guidance to be more systematic about it.

We have links to lots of simple but effective tools in our Clarifying, Planning, and Developing modules and you can find lots of others over on the Beyond Results website (thanks AgResearch!) as well as the Integrated Research Toolkit, hosted by Manaaki Whenua.

And, if you really want to give these a go, come along to one of our workshops. To find out when they’re running just drop us a line via the contacts page.

In our iPEN workshops, and especially our Communicating your impact module, we talk about how to engage your stakeholders (or engage new ones) and how we need to be clear about what the call to action is.

Given the competing priorities people are likely to be balancing, they need to see enough value in what you're asking them to do to be prepared to do 'something' for you. An effective call to action is important if we care about impact, as without our partners, collaborators, and stakeholders, we have much less chance of the ripples from our research turning into waves.

In our workshops we talk about how we can learn from the 'storytelling' techniques which are widely used by successful public speakers. Guidance given to TED Talks presenters for example, draws heavily on these principles.

 If you're looking for a quick read on what this all means, and what you might need to be thinking about next time you're asked to talk to a group of people that are important to your research take a look at this short read from Duarte on how to develop the best big idea for your presentation.

The article gives some great tips on things like:

• how to think about what the takeaway message might be
• how to build a distinct 'point of view' to catch your audience's attention
• how to figure out what's at stake for your listener, so you can engage them effectively

And if this piques your interest, you might like to follow this up with another short post from Duarte on how to influence through story.

For more ideas and tips, check out our Communicating Your Impact resources page, or get in touch to come along to our next workshop.

Designing and executing great research means getting your research questions right. They provide us with a scaffolding that keeps us targeted on what we need to focus on and deliver.

​In a nutshell, MS Srinivasan (Principal Scientist, NIWA) found that although he was producing what he thought was helpful information for farmers so they could irrigate more efficiently, his outputs weren’t leading to farmers doing anything differently. 

​Through their use of a co-innovation approach, their multi-disciplinary team developed a set of 12 questions (building on work by Donald Schön). These helped to ‘unlock’ their understanding of the context their research was happening in. 

Engaging farmers and other stakeholders through the use of these 12 questions helped MS and the team design a fit-for-purpose project. Then once the project was up and running, these questions were used again, to enable healthy reflection (with their stakeholders) on the progress of the project. 

Find out how the questions were developed and used and find links to publications: 12 Questions Scientists Should Ask Stakeholders to Increase Research Impact. 

The OLW team regularly share examples of how they are designing and delivering impact through their research. If you want to learn more subscribe to their newsletter!

Nature recently published an interesting article on how funding mechanisms and the incentives/constraints for scientists in South Korea have stifled outcomes and innovation. This is a great reminder that the systems we work in shape our mahi (from the type of research we do to the outputs we create). Being mindful of the context we work in can help us navigate some of the challenges and push for change in a way that will work to create impact.

The Nature article highlights three of the seven themes which iPEN included in our submission to the Te Ara Paerangi Green Paper to enable impactful science.

• Provide funding stability with flexibility
• Reward and recognise impactful work
• Work to align motivations and beliefs of individuals and entities   

 
Despite South Korea’s significant increase in research funding over the past decades, with the Basic Sciences Promotion Act, the article suggests that the inflexible, time-bound approach to research assessment is stifling basic science.
The country is home to world-class scientists but, according to the writer, it is not as productive as it could be, despite sufficient financial resources. This could be attributed to policies being “favouring short-term results over bold exploration”.
Read the article here.
​