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

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.

Closing the gap between science and management of cold‐water refuges in rivers and streams

“…We use “interested groups” instead of “stakeholders” throughout the review. The former term is more inclusive with respect to rights holders such as Indigenous peoples and more reflective of a participatory process (Reed & Rudman, 2022). Because of the emphasis on fish in the literature, the proposed framework uses coldwater fishes as proxies for all mobile coldwater organisms present in global freshwaters (Figure S1).…”

Impact through research in education and studies in human society: A review of Australian Research Council ‘high-for-impact’ case studies

“…In the face of unprecedented global challenges, it is understandable that governments increasingly endorse research directly impacting policy and practice. Despite corporate influence on higher education, the research impact agenda warrants critical examination, rather than outright dismissal as neoliberal [34]. However, as a social process, the research-practice nexus is far more nuanced than the ARC impact assessment framework implies.…”

Navigating power in conservation

“…We do not take a stance on this debate but encourage conservation practitioners to take local concepts of power seriously (Campbell, 2013), while also being conscious not to reproduce colonial images of the “other” (Chandler & Reid, 2020; Todd, 2016). Acknowledging and incorporating such spiritual, more‐than‐human, or non‐human power will help to represent and legitimize diverse views and voices of different people and draw better on Indigenous knowledge and customs to enhance conservation (Reed & Rudman, 2022). Progress towards better inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and views and conceptions of power is growing within conservation institutions such as IPBES (Hill et al, 2021; IUCN, 2022; McElwee et al, 2020; Pascual et al, 2017).…”

“…This is needed to give due consideration to social dimensions of conservation and thereby making interventions more effective, equitable and just. Increasingly, research should also have tangible impacts on policy and proactively benefit humans and the environment (Reed & Rudman, 2022). These calls have led to a growing emphasis on social accountability and safeguards, engagement, equity and empowerment in conservation research and practice (Reed et al, 2010; Wali et al, 2017).…”