How to demonstrate the real-world impact of your research

Martha Newson,Sadie Watson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03059-0

IF: 64.8

2024-10-31

Nature

Abstract:Nature, Published online: 30 October 2024; doi:10.1038/d41586-024-03059-0 Influencing policymakers might not feel like part of a researcher's role. But it should be, argue Martha Newson and Sadie Watson.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The impact factor of engaged research: Metrics for conservation outcomes

Simon Lhoest,Candice Carr Kelman,Chris J. Barton,Jessica A. Beaudette,Leah R. Gerber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110534

IF: 7.499

2024-03-07

Biological Conservation

Abstract:Will this paper lead to any measurable impact on biodiversity conservation? In this essay, we examine the relevance of scientific publications for conservation outcomes and propose specific recommendations to encourage procedural reforms in academia. While many conservation scientists dedicate significant effort to making their research accessible and actionable for conservation outcomes, academia often doesn't reward these efforts and can even inhibit them. Universities increasingly promote engaged scholarship, yet few institutions have established formal mechanisms that promote and reward such work. We suggest a new framework to support engaged universities and propose three recommendations for research institutions. Our recommendations are based on 71 interviews of conservation scientists producing actionable science. We recommend that universities: (1) actively support faculty engagement in boundary-spanning work, providing an interface between research and society; (2) meaningfully reward faculty work that makes a genuine impact on efforts to solve real-world problems, beyond academic publications; and (3) use appropriate metrics to recognize the value of impacts on society and contributions to practical conservation outcomes. Universities supporting engaged scholarship have the potential to excel in attracting talented scholars, securing funding, and fostering impactful change.

environmental sciences,biodiversity conservation,ecology
Impact in psychiatry research through experimentation, translation to industry, policy development and public engagement

Barbara J. Sahakian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114979

IF: 11.3

2022-11-23

Psychiatry Research

Abstract:In this article, I discuss areas where scientists can have impact and that I feel are important for the future of innovative research and societal impacts. Initially, I summarise my research career. I then move on to problem solving, using techniques such as functional neuroimaging and psychopharmacology, and new developments, such as the application of the computerised neuropsychological tests CANTAB, which I co-invented. CANTAB was inspired by the need for early detection, pharmacological treatment and neuropsychological understanding of cognitive deficits in neurodegenerative and neuropsychiatric disorders. Finally, I address neuroethical and societal concerns through books, articles and the media and affected UK government policy through the Foresight Project. In future, young scientists hopefully will contribute more time to these important areas of policy development and public engagement.

psychiatry
Re-thinking research impact: voice, context and power at the interface of science, policy and practice

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01216-w

IF: 6

2022-09-16

Sustainability Science

Abstract:The world is facing unprecedented challenges on a scale that has never been seen before, and the need for evidence-informed solutions has never been greater. As a result, academics, policy-makers, practitioners, and research funders are increasingly seeking to undertake or support research that achieves tangible impacts on policy and practice. However, the impact of research is inherently subjective, with the same outcome perceived as either beneficial or negative by different groups, or by the same group in different contexts. It is therefore important to consider factors that may increase the likelihood that outcomes from research are perceived as beneficial (or otherwise) by interested/affected groups and non-academic partners, to help researchers avoid causing potentially harmful impacts, despite their best intentions. In this overview article, we discuss three considerations for re-thinking how research can deliver such outcomes: (i) sensitivity to context, (ii) representation and legitimisation of diverse voices and (iii) the management of power dynamics. We then discuss how these can be enacted in research and engagement processes that are designed to incorporate multiple ways of viewing reality and knowledge, as researchers become increasingly aware of their positionality, privilege, assumptions and biases. By considering how research and impact generation processes are mediated by context, power and voice, it may be possible to envision just transformations of knowledge systems that foreground the knowledge and needs of diverse groups, including those who have been historically marginalised, and without systematically recognising or privileging one group over another.

environmental sciences,green & sustainable science & technology
Societal and scientific impact of policy research: A large-scale empirical study of some explanatory factors using Altmetric and Overton

Pablo Dorta-González,Alejandro Rodríguez-Caro,María Isabel Dorta-González

2024-03-11

Abstract:This study investigates how scientific research influences policymaking by analyzing citations of research articles in policy documents (policy impact) for nearly 125,000 articles across 434 public policy journals. We reveal distinct citation patterns between policymakers and other stakeholders like researchers, journalists, and the public. News and blog mentions, social media engagement, and open access publications (excluding fully open access) significantly increase the likelihood of a research article being cited in policy documents. Conversely, articles locked behind paywalls and those published under the full open access model (based on Altmetric data) have a lower chance of being policy-cited. Publication year and policy type show no significant influence. Our findings emphasize the crucial role of science communication channels like news media and social media in bridging the gap between research and policy. Interestingly, academic citations hold a weaker influence on policy citations compared to news mentions, suggesting a potential disconnect between how researchers reference research and how policymakers utilize it. This highlights the need for improved communication strategies to ensure research informs policy decisions more effectively. This study provides valuable insights for researchers, policymakers, and science communicators. Researchers can tailor their dissemination efforts to reach policymakers through media channels. Policymakers can leverage these findings to identify research with higher policy relevance. Science communicators can play a critical role in translating research for policymakers and fostering dialogue between the scientific and policymaking communities.

Digital Libraries,Applications
From "our world" to the "real world": Exploring the views and behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers

Abby S Haynes,Gjemma E Derrick,Simon Chapman,Sally Redman,Wayne D Hall,James Gillespie,Heidi Sturk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.004

Abstract:Research and researchers influence the genesis and development of public health policy in limited but essential ways. Surveys and interviews with 36 peer-nominated "highly influential" Australian public health researchers found they engaged in a breadth of strategies that included rigorous but targeted research design, multilateral collaboration, multiple methods of research dissemination and promotion (including tactical use of the media), and purposeful development of bridging relationships. Researchers' ability to understand the worlds of research, policy and the media and to speak their languages (or to work with others who fulfilled this role) was a key factor. Advocacy was seen as fundamental by some but was disparaged by others. Influential behaviours were guided by values and beliefs about the principles underlying traditional science and the contrasting ethos of contemporary research. This study may help researchers consider their own policy-related roles, strategies and relationships in the context of increasing calls for research that serves economic and/or social goals.
The Importance of Documenting the Impacts of Health Communication

Andy J. King

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2024.2416013

IF: 3.501

2024-10-17

Health Communication

Abstract:No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). 1. One important distinction we had to explain to authors was differentiating between the impact of a communication effort within a study and the impact of that study outside of academic contexts. Others have written about this as well (e.g., Smith, Citation 2018 ), noting as an example that a randomized controlled trial can have an impact on health outcomes but the impact of that research beyond the trial would likely be what most considered "impact." Also, unlike in the 100 th issue forum, which included impact ON health communication research, we tried to focus primarily impact beyond the original or initial research studies. 2. Two other important considerations. First, who documents impact is not specified because I am not sure it matters. You can document others' impact as well or better than you can document your own. Community partners are well situated to document impact in ways researchers might have a hard time writing up in a way that resonates with stakeholders. Second, defining "original research context" is also a challenge – but scholars should document impact more often than not and worry about the utility or quality of those documented impacts over time. For example, outside of the original research context could be a research context in another field. 3. This categorization is reasonable but completely subjective and ignores nuance and overlap of the many impressive activities reported. Still, such categorization streamlines the discussion of trends and observations across essays. 4. This conclusion mirrors that of the editors in their reply to the essays in the 100 th issue of the journal (Thompson et al., Citation 2010 ). In almost 15 years, due undoubtedly in the need for researchers to document their individual impact on the field rather than their impact beyond the field, the documentation of impact of research outside of the immediate research context has changed little among health communication researchers. In that commentary, the authors note the need to reframe what one considers scholarly activity to truly allow for more efforts to have an impact beyond one's own research – an important and thoughtful comment that unfortunately seems to be mostly a priority in writing rather than in practice for most scholars. 5. This concern is not unlike critiques of research studies where some theory/model is mostly unsupported by results, but authors suggest in the discussion that the important results are what supported the theory/model.

health policy & services,communication
Imagine moving behavioral science findings languishing in scholarly journals to public consumption

Gary P. Latham,Alex Alonso

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231225086

2024-06-09

Organizational Psychology Review

Abstract:Organizational Psychology Review, Volume 14, Issue 2, Page 360-369, May 2024. Where has our reach and impact gone? As behavioral scientists, it is incumbent upon us to extend the reach of our work. Doing so is never easy unless you follow a few approaches. This manuscript underscores the imperative for behavioral scientists to communicate their research findings beyond traditional academic confines, targeting non-scientific audiences. We outline strategic steps that scholars can adopt to enhance the visibility, accessibility, and impact of their research. These include (1) translating scientific jargon into comprehensible language; (2) leveraging digital platforms like blogs, podcasts, and social media; (3) collaborating with media professionals for broader outreach; (4) engaging in public talks and community forums; and (5) developing buy-in from the audiences needed for organizational success. Implementing these strategies not only reinforces the societal relevance of social behavioral science, but also fosters a more informed and engaged public, bridging the gap between academia and the broader community.Plain language summary (latham & alonso)Too often behavioral scientists find themselves languishing in navel-gazing postures because of our incentivization systems. We, behavioral scientists, are rewarded for publishing in peer-reviewed journals where we communicate with one another in the most abstruse jargon imaginable. It comes as no surprise then that we seldom find ourselves translating theory into applied work and, even more seldom, making an impact on real-world problems.While we find ourselves in low-impact, high navel-gazing situations often, there are several things we can do to take application to theory and, vice versa, enhance theory into applied settings. Throughout this manuscript, Latham and Alonso provide a thorough examination of how behavioral scientists can develop partnerships with stakeholder groups. Further, they examine how learning programs can adapt to build partnership skillsets among behavioral scientists. Finally, they apply their findings to an example involving the application of theory around interactive justice.

psychology, applied,management
Some recommendations for doing high‐impact research in social psychological science

Sander Linden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12463

2021-02-01

Asian Journal Of Social Psychology

Abstract:<p>In this article, I reflect upon my own career to distil some general recommendations for doing high‐impact social psychological research in the midst of a worldwide pandemic. My suggestions include (a) testing and deriving theories that can help explain real‐world human judgment and behaviour (answering questions that people care about), (b) preaching beyond the choir (communicating your research to audiences outside of social psychology), and (c) birds of a feather are stronger together (maximizing impact through strategic collaborations).</p>

psychology, social
Shifting the paradigm of research-to-policy impact: Infrastructure for improving researcher engagement and collective action

Taylor Scott,Max Crowley,Elizabeth Long,Brandon Balma,Jessica Pugel,Brittany Gay,Angelique Day,Jennie Noll

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579424000270

2024-03-24

Development and Psychopathology

Abstract:The body of scientific knowledge accumulated by the scholarly disciplines such as Developmental Psychopathology can achieve meaningful public impact if wielded and used in policy decision-making. Scientific study of how policymakers use research evidence underscores the need for researchers' policy engagement; however, barriers in the academy create conditions in which there is a need for infrastructure that increases the feasibility of researchers' partnership with policymakers. This need led to the development of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration model, a systematic approach for developing "boundary spanning" infrastructure, which has been experimentally tested and shown to improve policymakers' use of research evidence and bolster researchers' policy skills and engagement. This paper presents original research regarding the optimization of the RPC model, which sought to better serve and engage scholars across the globe. Trial findings shed light on ways to improve conditions that make good use of researchers' time for policy engagement via a virtual platform and enhanced e-communications. Future directions, implications, and practical guidelines for how scientists can engage in the political process and improve the impact of a collective discipline are also discussed.

psychology, developmental
Scientific Impact: Opportunity and Necessity

Marlene Z. Cohen,Gregory L. Alexander,Jean F. Wyman,Nancy L. Fahrenwald,Davina Porock,Mary E. Wurzbach,Susan M. Rawl,Vicki S. Conn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945910365328

2010-08-01

Western Journal of Nursing Research

Abstract:Recent National Institutes of Health changes have focused attention on the potential scientific impact of research projects. Research with the excellent potential to change subsequent science or health care practice may have high scientific impact. Only rigorous studies that address highly significant problems can generate change. Studies with high impact may stimulate new research approaches by changing understanding of a phenomenon, informing theory development, or creating new research methods that allow a field of science to move forward. Research with high impact can transition health care to more effective and efficient approaches. Studies with high impact may propel new policy developments. Research with high scientific impact typically has both immediate and sustained influence on the field of study. The article includes ideas to articulate potential scientific impact in grant applications as well as possible dissemination strategies to enlarge the impact of completed projects.

nursing
Want to make a difference? Try working at an environmental non-profit organization

Natasha Gilbert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01257-4

IF: 64.8

2024-04-27

Nature

Abstract:Moving to non-profit work requires researchers to shift their mindset to focus on applied science for policymaking and conservation practice. Moving to non-profit work requires researchers to shift their mindset to focus on applied science for policymaking and conservation practice.

multidisciplinary sciences
How to communicate effectively with policymakers: combine insights from psychology and policy studies

Paul Cairney,Richard Kwiatkowski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0046-8

2017-11-28

Palgrave Communications

Abstract:To communicate effectively in policymaking systems, actors need to understand how policymakers process evidence and the environment in which they operate. Therefore, we combine psychology and policy studies to produce a three-step strategy. First, do not bombard people with evidence. Human beings have too much information to process, and they use heuristics to filter information to make decisions quickly. Synthesise and frame evidence to help you tailor it to the ways in which policymakers demand and understand information. Second, find the right time to act. Timing matters during key individuals’ patterns of thinking and the alignment of conditions in political systems. Third, engage with real world policymaking rather than waiting for a ‘rational’ and orderly process to appear. To present evidence during mythical stages of a ‘policy cycle’ is misguided, and to ‘speak truth to power’ without establishing legitimacy and building trust may be counterproductive. Our overall message is pragmatic, not Machiavellian: effective communication requires the suppliers of evidence to see the world from the perspective of their audience and understand the policy process in which they engage.
Evidence-based research impact praxis: Integrating scholarship and practice to ensure research benefits society

Eric A Jensen,Mark Reed,Aaron M Jensen,Alexander Gerber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.14205.2

2023-08-04

Abstract: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.
Societal impact of university research in the written press: media attention in the context of SIUR and the open science agenda among social scientists in Flanders, Belgium

Hans Jonker,Florian Vanlee,Walter Ysebaert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04374-x

IF: 3.801

Scientometrics

Abstract:Transferring scientific knowledge to non-academic audiences is an essential aspect of the open science agenda, which calls for scholars to pursue a popularization of their research. Accordingly, purposefully introducing scientific insights to the public at large is almost univocally deemed commendable. Indeed, in today's models of research evaluation, the objects and activities considered are being extended beyond peer-reviewed journal articles to include non-scholarly popular communication. Although altmetrics offer one instrumental way to count some interactions with lay audiences, their reliance on social media makes them susceptible to manipulation, and mostly reflect circulation among niche audiences. In comparison, attention from non-scholarly media like newspapers and magazines seems a more relevant pathway to effectuate societal impact, due to its recognition in qualitative assessment tools and its broad, societal reach. Based on a case study of social scientists' attention by newspapers and magazines in Flanders (northern Dutch-speaking region of Belgium) in 2019, this paper highlights that frequent participation in the public debate is reserved for high-status researchers only. Results show highly skewed media appearance patterns in both career position and gender, as eight male professors accounted for almost half of all 2019 media attention for social scientists. Because media attention is highly subject-dependent moreover, certain disciplines and fields offer easier pathways to popularization in media than others. Both the open science agenda and research assessment models value presence of researchers in popular media, adding written press attention to existing evaluation assessments however would disproportionately disadvantage early career researchers and exacerbate existing inequalities in academia. Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-022-04374-x.
A measure for the impact of research

Alejandro M. Aragón

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1302.7274

2013-04-12

Abstract:The last few years have seen the proliferation of measures that quantify the scientific output of researches. Yet, these measures focus on productivity, thus fostering the "publish or perish" paradigm. This article proposes a measure that aims at quantifying the impact of research de-emphasizing productivity, thus providing scientists an alternative, conceivably fairer, evaluation of their work. Emphasis is placed on the scientist rather than on quantities that can grow unbounded. The measure, defined initially for manuscripts, is then extended to researchers and institutions.

Digital Libraries
Now is the time for academics to think and act beyond academia

Heather M. Kharouba

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2023-0070

2024-03-23

FACETS

Abstract:FACETS, Volume 9, Issue , Page 1-3, January 2024. Despite the challenges posed by climate change and the biodiversity crisis, most academic research continues to stay within academia and the gaps between conservation science, policy, and practice remain intact. We need to improve the exchange of evidence between researchers and conservation practitioners and focus on solutions-oriented, interdisciplinary science and co-developed research. As we continue to break climate records and lose record numbers of species every year, now is the time for academics to think and act beyond their institutions.

multidisciplinary sciences
Scientists, your local communities need you. It's time to step up

Arti Garg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02758-y

IF: 64.8

2024-08-29

Nature

Abstract:Researchers and engineers have the skills, and often the desire, to get involved with local policymaking efforts. They should take the plunge; it's easier and more rewarding than it might seem. Researchers and engineers have the skills, and often the desire, to get involved with local policymaking efforts. They should take the plunge; it's easier and more rewarding than it might seem.

multidisciplinary sciences
How to boost your research: take a sabbatical in policy

Jordan Dworkin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00479-w

IF: 64.8

2024-02-22

Nature

Abstract:Academic researchers have a unique opportunity to benefit society — and their research — by spending time in government. Academic researchers have a unique opportunity to benefit society — and their research — by spending time in government.

multidisciplinary sciences
Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy?

Paul Cairney,Kathryn Oliver

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0192-x

2017-04-26

Health Research Policy and Systems

Abstract:There is extensive health and public health literature on the ‘evidence-policy gap’, exploring the frustrating experiences of scientists trying to secure a response to the problems and solutions they raise and identifying the need for better evidence to reduce policymaker uncertainty. We offer a new perspective by using policy theory to propose research with greater impact, identifying the need to use persuasion to reduce ambiguity, and to adapt to multi-level policymaking systems.We identify insights from secondary data, namely systematic reviews, critical analysis and policy theories relevant to evidence-based policymaking. The studies are drawn primarily from countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We combine empirical and normative elements to identify the ways in which scientists can, do and could influence policy.We identify two important dilemmas, for scientists and researchers, that arise from our initial advice. First, effective actors combine evidence with manipulative emotional appeals to influence the policy agenda – should scientists do the same, or would the reputational costs outweigh the policy benefits? Second, when adapting to multi-level policymaking, should scientists prioritise ‘evidence-based’ policymaking above other factors? The latter includes governance principles such the ‘co-production’ of policy between local public bodies, interest groups and service users. This process may be based primarily on values and involve actors with no commitment to a hierarchy of evidence.We conclude that successful engagement in ‘evidence-based policymaking’ requires pragmatism, combining scientific evidence with governance principles, and persuasion to translate complex evidence into simple stories. To maximise the use of scientific evidence in health and public health policy, researchers should recognise the tendency of policymakers to base judgements on their beliefs, and shortcuts based on their emotions and familiarity with information; learn ‘where the action is’, and be prepared to engage in long-term strategies to be able to influence policy; and, in both cases, decide how far you are willing to go to persuade policymakers to act and secure a hierarchy of evidence underpinning policy. These are value-driven and political, not just ‘evidence-based’, choices.

health policy & services
Science-policy advisers shape programmes that solve real-world problems

Amy DePaul

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03040-x

IF: 64.8

2024-09-19

Nature

Abstract:Four scientists discuss how they broke into the field and how they use evidence to tackle society's problems. Four scientists discuss how they broke into the field and how they use evidence to tackle society's problems.

multidisciplinary sciences

How to demonstrate the real-world impact of your research

The impact factor of engaged research: Metrics for conservation outcomes

Impact in psychiatry research through experimentation, translation to industry, policy development and public engagement

Re-thinking research impact: voice, context and power at the interface of science, policy and practice

Societal and scientific impact of policy research: A large-scale empirical study of some explanatory factors using Altmetric and Overton

From "our world" to the "real world": Exploring the views and behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers

The Importance of Documenting the Impacts of Health Communication

Imagine moving behavioral science findings languishing in scholarly journals to public consumption

Some recommendations for doing high‐impact research in social psychological science

Shifting the paradigm of research-to-policy impact: Infrastructure for improving researcher engagement and collective action

Scientific Impact: Opportunity and Necessity

Want to make a difference? Try working at an environmental non-profit organization

How to communicate effectively with policymakers: combine insights from psychology and policy studies

Evidence-based research impact praxis: Integrating scholarship and practice to ensure research benefits society

Societal impact of university research in the written press: media attention in the context of SIUR and the open science agenda among social scientists in Flanders, Belgium

A measure for the impact of research

Now is the time for academics to think and act beyond academia

Scientists, your local communities need you. It's time to step up

How to boost your research: take a sabbatical in policy

Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy?

Science-policy advisers shape programmes that solve real-world problems