How can impact strategies be developed that better support universities to address twenty-first-century challenges?

M. S. Reed, S. Gent, F. Seballos, Jayne Glass, R. Hansda, M. Fischer-Møller
{"title":"How can impact strategies be developed that better support universities to address twenty-first-century challenges?","authors":"M. S. Reed, S. Gent, F. Seballos, Jayne Glass, R. Hansda, M. Fischer-Møller","doi":"10.14324/rfa.06.1.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nTo better address twenty-first-century challenges, research institutions often develop and publish research impact strategies, but as a tool, impact strategies are poorly understood. This study provides the first formal analysis of impact strategies from the UK, Canada, Australia, Denmark, New Zealand and Hong Kong, China, and from independent research institutes. Two types of strategy emerged. First, ‘achieving impact’ strategies tended to be bottom-up and co-productive, with a strong emphasis on partnerships and engagement, but they were more likely to target specific beneficiaries with structured implementation plans, use boundary organisations to co-produce research and impact, and recognise impact with less reliance on extrinsic incentives. Second, ‘enabling impact’ strategies were more top-down and incentive-driven, developed to build impact capacity and culture across an institution, faculty or centre, with a strong focus on partnerships and engagement, and they invested in dedicated impact teams and academic impact roles, supported by extrinsic incentives including promotion criteria. This typology offers a new way to categorise, analyse and understand research impact strategies, alongside insights that may be used by practitioners to guide the design of future strategies, considering the limitations of top-down, incentive-driven approaches versus more bottom-up, co-productive approaches.","PeriodicalId":165758,"journal":{"name":"Research for All","volume":"79 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research for All","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14324/rfa.06.1.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

To better address twenty-first-century challenges, research institutions often develop and publish research impact strategies, but as a tool, impact strategies are poorly understood. This study provides the first formal analysis of impact strategies from the UK, Canada, Australia, Denmark, New Zealand and Hong Kong, China, and from independent research institutes. Two types of strategy emerged. First, ‘achieving impact’ strategies tended to be bottom-up and co-productive, with a strong emphasis on partnerships and engagement, but they were more likely to target specific beneficiaries with structured implementation plans, use boundary organisations to co-produce research and impact, and recognise impact with less reliance on extrinsic incentives. Second, ‘enabling impact’ strategies were more top-down and incentive-driven, developed to build impact capacity and culture across an institution, faculty or centre, with a strong focus on partnerships and engagement, and they invested in dedicated impact teams and academic impact roles, supported by extrinsic incentives including promotion criteria. This typology offers a new way to categorise, analyse and understand research impact strategies, alongside insights that may be used by practitioners to guide the design of future strategies, considering the limitations of top-down, incentive-driven approaches versus more bottom-up, co-productive approaches.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如何制定影响战略,更好地支持大学应对21世纪的挑战?
为了更好地应对21世纪的挑战,研究机构经常制定和发布研究影响战略,但作为一种工具,人们对影响战略的理解很少。本研究首次对来自英国、加拿大、澳大利亚、丹麦、新西兰和中国香港以及独立研究机构的影响策略进行了正式分析。于是出现了两种策略。首先,“实现影响”战略往往是自下而上和共同产生的,非常强调伙伴关系和参与,但是它们更有可能针对特定的受益者,制定结构化的实施计划,利用边界组织共同产生研究和影响,并在较少依赖外部激励的情况下认识到影响。其次,“促进影响”战略更多地是自上而下和激励驱动的,旨在建立整个机构、学院或中心的影响能力和文化,重点关注伙伴关系和参与,他们投资于专门的影响团队和学术影响角色,并得到包括晋升标准在内的外部激励的支持。这种类型学为分类、分析和理解研究影响策略提供了一种新的方法,同时也为实践者提供了指导未来策略设计的见解,考虑到自上而下、激励驱动的方法与自下而上、共同生产的方法的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Stakeholder-engaged research: a multidisciplinary historical analysis A co-design exemplar: how to align with community goals when developing data collection methods with communities from refugee backgrounds Delivering citizen science online and hybrid: impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on recruitment and engagement Virtual Maths Circles: helping young people to think like researchers Virtual Maths Circles: helping young people to think like researchers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1