The missing links of research impact

Abstract

In this article, we present a conceptual framework for studying research impact focusing on the foundations that need to be in place to accelerate an observable change of policy, practice or behaviour. The article investigates the relationship between micro-impacts and societal change, and how smaller impacts scale into larger cascades of end effects and value creation. We define micro-impacts as interactions and connections where information is exchanged between a researcher or research group and external audiences, stakeholders or co-producers. Micro-impacts are elements in highly complex causal relations between research activities and larger societal macroshifts. We argue that even though these causal relations are complex, micro-impacts are tangible and observable and should be integrated in research evaluations as constitutive elements of causal impact relations leading to larger macroshifts. We suggest a working model for studying micro-impacts and for reflecting on the causality of impacts by drawing on contributions from philosophy of causation. A proper understanding of causation is a prerequisite for eventually understanding and capturing research impact, which itself is a prerequisite for responsible research assessment and planning.

Technical and artistic production by brazilian postgraduate courses with emphasis on Social Sciences and Humanities

“…Use of this type of material also varies by subject area (Cooke;Rosenthal, 2011;Roesnita;Zainab, 2005). As such, SSH tends to have a more context-sensitive and nuanced understanding of impact (Pedersen;Grønvad;Hvidtfeldt, 2020) Therefore, it is a powerful tool for measuring the political and socio-economic impact of research in Brazil but needs to be modified for this end.…”

Recognising the importance and impact of Imaging Scientists: Global guidelines for establishing career paths within core facilities

“…For academic researchers, papers published or grants funded are used as impact measures, but the important contribution Imaging Scientists have on these same outcomes is frequently neglected. 8 For example, they may be acknowledged, but this is much harder to quantify and automatically assess than authorship. Similarly, it is undeniable that the training, consultation and support provided by Imaging Scientists play a crucial role in researchers going on to deliver high-impact papers, being competitive for grants, and succeeding in their own right, but this is similarly hard to quantify and track.…”

“…Advanced Bioimaging Support (ABiS) 1 in Japan, African BioImaging Consortium (ABIC), 2 Argentine National Microscopy System (SNM), 3 BioImaging North America (BINA), 4 BioImagingUK Network, 5 Canada BioImaging, 6 Euro-BioImaging (EuBI), 7 France BioImaging (FBI), 8 German BioImaging (GerBI-GMB), 9 India BioImaging Consortium, Latin America BioImaging (LABI), 10 Microscopy Australia (MA) 11 and the National Imaging Facility (NIF) 12 in Australia, National Laboratory for Advanced Microscopy (LNMA) 13 in Mexico, SingaScope 14 in Singapore and South Africa BioImaging. 15 NB, as part of Bioimaging North America, is supported by a grant from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative DAF, an advised fund of Silicon Valley Community Founda Open access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.…”

“…Measuring the impact of Imaging Scientists is challenging due to the diversity of their contributions to multiple and simultaneous research projects combined with varied other tasks (Figure 3). For academic researchers, papers published or grants funded are used as impact measures, but the important contribution Imaging Scientists have on these same outcomes is frequently neglected 8 . For example, they may be acknowledged, but this is much harder to quantify and automatically assess than authorship.…”