Published November 16, 2021
| Version 1
Journal article
Open
Evidence-based research impact praxis: Integrating scholarship and practice to ensure research benefits society
Authors/Creators
- 1. Qualia Analytics, Unit 23, Trinity Technology & Enterprise Campus, Pearse Street, Dublin, D02 WR66, Ireland
- 2. SRUC Aberdeen, Ferguson Building, Craibstone Estate, Bucksburn, Scotland, AB21 9YA, UK
- 3. University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
- 4. Rhine-Waal University, Marie Curie Str 1, Kleve, 47533, Germany
Description
Effective research impact development is essential to address global challenges. This commentary highlights key issues facing research impact development as a nascent professional field of practice. We argue that those working on research impact should take a strategic, 'evidence-based' approach to maximize potential research benefits and minimize potential harms. We identify key features of evidence-based good practice in the context of research impact work. This includes integrating relevant research and theory into professional decision-making, drawing on a diversity of academic disciplines offering pertinent insights. Such an integration of scholarship and practice will improve the capacity of research impact work to make a positive difference for society. Moving the focus of research impact work to earlier stages in the research and innovation process through stakeholder engagement and anticipatory research can also boost its effectiveness. The research impact evidence base should be combined with the right kind of professional capacities and practical experience to enhance positive impact. Such capacities need to be developed through relevant education and training, for example, in participatory methods and social inclusion. Such training for research impact work needs to forge strong links between research impact scholarship and practice. Finally, there is a need for improvements in the evidence base for research impact to make it more practically useful.
Files
openreseurope-1-15318.pdf
Files
(620.2 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:865e1362a81a270192d41d252ce2002c
|
620.2 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
References
- Adams B (2008). Green development: Environment and sustainability in a developing world. doi:10.4324/9780203929711
- Boydell K, Gladstone BM, Volpe T (2012). The production and dissemination of knowledge: A scoping review of arts-based health research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum Qual Soc Res. doi:10.17169/fqs-13.1.1711
- Chubb J, Reed MS (2018). The politics of research impact: academic perceptions of the implications for research funding, motivation and quality. Br Polit. doi:10.1057/s41293-018-0077-9
- Coemans S, Wang Q, Leysen J (2015). The use of arts-based methods in community-based research with vulnerable populations: Protocol for a scoping review. Int J Educ Res. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2015.02.008
- Colvin RM, Witt GB, Lacey J (2016). Approaches to identifying stakeholders in environmental management: Insights from practitioners to go beyond the 'usual suspects'. Land use policy. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.032
- Cooke B, Kothari U, Eds (2001). Participation: The new tyranny?.
- de Hoop E, Pols A, Romijn H (2016). Limits to responsible innovation. J Responsible Innov. doi:10.1080/23299460.2016.1231396
- de Vente J, Reed MS, Stringer LC (2016). How does the context and design of participatory decision making processes affect their outcomes? Evidence from sustainable land management in global drylands. Ecol Soc. doi:10.5751/ES-08053-210224
- Edler J, Georghiou L, Blind K (2012). Evaluating the demand side: New challenges for evaluation. Res Evaluat. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvr002
- Estrella M, Gaventa J (1998). Who Counts Reality? Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: A Literature Review. IDS working paper 70.
- Fritsch O, Newig J (2012). Participatory governance and sustainability: findings of a meta-analysis of stakeholder involvement in environmental decision making. Reflexive governance for global public goods. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262017244.003.0195
- Gerber A (2014). Science caught flat-footed: How academia struggles with open science communication. Opening science – The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_4
- Gerber A (2018). RRI: How to 'mainstream' the 'upstream' engagement. JCOM J Sci Commun. doi:10.22323/2.17030306
- Gerber A, Forsberg EM, Shelley-Egan C (2020). Joint declaration on mainstreaming RRI across Horizon Europe. J Responsible Innov. doi:10.1080/23299460.2020.1764837
- Gow J, Redwood H (2020). Impact in International Affairs: The Quest for World-Leading Research. doi:10.1093/ia/iiaa213
- Guijt I, Arevalo M, Saladores K (1998). Participatory monitoring and evaluation: tracking change together. PLA Notes.
- Heneghan C, Mahtani KR, Goldacre B (2017). Evidence based medicine manifesto for better healthcare: A response to systematic bias, wastage, error and fraud in research underpinning patient care. Evid Based Med. doi:10.1136/ebmed-2017-j2973rep
- Jensen EA (2013). Reconsidering : Evaluating the potential of art museum outreach. Visitor Studies. doi:10.1080/10645578.2013.827010
- Jensen E (2014). The problems with science communication evaluation. JCOM J Sci Commun. doi:10.22323/2.13010304
- Jensen E (2015a). Evaluating impact and quality of experience in the 21 century: Using technology to narrow the gap between science communication research and practice. JCOM J Sci Commun. doi:10.22323/2.14030305
- Jensen E (2015b). Highlighting the value of impact evaluation: Enhancing informal science learning and public engagement theory and practice. JCOM J Sci Commun. doi:10.22323/2.14030405
- Jensen E (2020a). How should socially responsible science be measured? (eLetter). Science. doi:10.1126/science.abb3415
- Jensen EA (2020b). Reexamining research on motivations and perspectives of scientists relating to public engagement. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. doi:10.1073/pnas.2000633117
- Jensen EA (2020c). Why impact evaluation matters in science communication: Or, advancing the science of science communication.
- Jensen E, Holliman R (2016). Norms and values in UK science engagement practice. Int J Sci Educ B Commun Public Engagem. doi:10.1080/21548455.2014.995743
- Jensen EA, Laurie C (null). Doing real research: A practical guide to social research.
- Jensen E, Wong P, Reed MS (null). How research data delivers non-academic impacts: A secondary analysis of UK Research Excellence Framework impact case studies. PLoS One.
- John LK, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol Sci. doi:10.1177/0956797611430953
- Karcher DB, Cvitanovic C, Colvin RM (null). Is this what success looks like? Mismatches between the aims, claims and evidence for impact from knowledge exchange processes in environmental science and policy. Environ Sci Policy. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.012
- Kennedy EB, Jensen EA, Verbeke M (2018). Preaching to the scientifically converted: Evaluating inclusivity in science festival audiences. Int J Sci Educ B Commun Public Engagem. doi:10.1080/21548455.2017.1371356
- Kennedy EB, Jensen EA, Jensen AM (2021). Methodological considerations for survey-based research during emergencies and public health crises: Improving the quality of evidence & science communication. Front Commun.
- Moon K, Blackman DA, Adams VM (2019). Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods. Methods Ecol Evol. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.13126
- Morgan DL (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J Mix Method Res. doi:10.1177/2345678906292462
- Morgan DL (2014). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. doi:10.4135/9781544304533
- Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J (2011). The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180
- Nichols JD, Oli MK, Kendall WL (2021). Opinion: A better approach for dealing with reproducibility and replicability in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. doi:10.1073/pnas.2100769118
- Oancea A (2019). Research governance and the future(s) of research assessment. Palgrave Commun. doi:10.1057/s41599-018-0213-6
- Piwowar H, Priem J, Larivière V (2018). The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ. doi:10.7717/peerj.4375
- Reed MS, Bryce R, Machen R (2018). Pathways to policy impact: a new approach for planning and evidencing research impact. Evidence & Policy. doi:10.1332/174426418X15326967547242
- Reed MS, Ferre M, Martin-Ortega J (2021). Evaluating impact from research: A methodological framework. Res Policy. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2020.104147
- Sarkki S, Niemelä J, Tinch R (2014). Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: a critical assessment of trade-offs in science–policy interfaces. Science and Public Policy. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct046
- Stewart GB, Young DM, Reed MS (null). Improving evidence-based policy and practice in conservation biology requires us to think harder about what we measure, report and share.
- Sutherland WJ, Dicks LV, Ockendon N (2015). What Works in Conservation 2015.
- Van der Vaart G, van Hoven B, Huigen PP (2018). Creative and arts-based research methods in academic research. Lessons from a participatory research project in the Netherlands. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum Qual Soc Res. doi:10.17169/fqs-19.2.2961
- Vella S, Carter C, Reed MS (2021). What can we learn from anthropological practice to conduct socially just participatory action research?. Educational Action Research. doi:10.1080/09650792.2021.1897024
- Villaseñor E, Porter-Bolland L, Escobar-Sarria F (2020). Selection of indicators as a tool for negotiating objectives and evaluating targets within participatory monitoring. Sustain Sci. doi:10.1007/s11625-020-00795-w
- Watermeyer R (2019). Competitive accountability in academic life: The struggle for social impact and public legitimacy.
- Wróblewska MN (2021). Research impact evaluation and academic discourse. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. doi:10.1057/s41599-021-00727-8