Alison M. Meadow, Gigi Owen, Nupur Joshi, Elise Lodge Otto
Universities, researchers and funders are increasingly asking how research contributes to positive changes in society and the environment, and seeking ways to document and describe impacts consistently across diverse disciplines and organisational scales. The societal impacts framework presented in this pilot study uses a combination of impact goal and impact descriptor frameworks to elucidate the societal impacts of research. The framework blends elements of assessment-driven and mission-driven reporting frameworks, and was administered online to volunteers from one interdisciplinary environmental research institute. The 12 projects in the pilot study addressed 15 of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals, and all 12 projects reported impacts in two or more of six impact descriptor categories. We also identified an impact subcategory dealing with changes to higher education practice. Combining two types of impacts frameworks – societal goals and descriptors of changes – allowed us to understand how the research projects contributed to broad societal goals, not just that they addressed the goals. Responses from study participants indicated a good fit between the framework and their research efforts. However, we found that the online reporting tool, in its current form, was not effective in eliciting full and accurate reports from all participants. We reflect upon how to improve data collection in the future, as well as on opportunities for additional tests of the framework in new contexts.
{"title":"Combining impact goal and impact descriptor frameworks to elucidate the societal impacts of research: a pilot study","authors":"Alison M. Meadow, Gigi Owen, Nupur Joshi, Elise Lodge Otto","doi":"10.14324/rfa.08.1.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/rfa.08.1.03","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Universities, researchers and funders are increasingly asking how research contributes to positive changes in society and the environment, and seeking ways to document and describe impacts consistently across diverse disciplines and organisational scales. The societal impacts framework presented in this pilot study uses a combination of impact goal and impact descriptor frameworks to elucidate the societal impacts of research. The framework blends elements of assessment-driven and mission-driven reporting frameworks, and was administered online to volunteers from one interdisciplinary environmental research institute. The 12 projects in the pilot study addressed 15 of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals, and all 12 projects reported impacts in two or more of six impact descriptor categories. We also identified an impact subcategory dealing with changes to higher education practice. Combining two types of impacts frameworks – societal goals and descriptors of changes – allowed us to understand how the research projects contributed to broad societal goals, not just that they addressed the goals. Responses from study participants indicated a good fit between the framework and their research efforts. However, we found that the online reporting tool, in its current form, was not effective in eliciting full and accurate reports from all participants. We reflect upon how to improve data collection in the future, as well as on opportunities for additional tests of the framework in new contexts.\u0000","PeriodicalId":500657,"journal":{"name":"Research for all","volume":" 45","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140692183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Carmel McGrath, Katherine Baker, John McGavin, Michael Bahrami-Hessari, William Barney Jones, Lindsay Welch, Caroline Barker
The Covid-19 pandemic reduced research collaborations with public contributors and prevented face-to-face interaction. The formation of Researcher Coffee Mornings within the Wessex region aimed to continue relationships between the research community and public through the pandemic. Researcher Coffee Mornings were regular Zoom meetings run by public involvement staff at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK. They were created to provide pastoral support and ‘check-ins’ between staff and public contributors during the Covid-19 pandemic. Reorganisation, implemented by public involvement staff but led by public contributors, meant that the events evolved over time. The Researcher Coffee Mornings were a means to share updates about research with the public. They were a safe space for involvement staff, researchers and the public to exchange knowledge and share experiences. This article highlights the intended and unexpected benefits of investing in relationships. We reflect on these benefits through the perspectives of the public involvement staff, public contributors and researchers. Investing in relationships has brought value to everyone involved. By demonstrating the benefits of providing regular, inclusive spaces for relationship building between the research community and public contributors, we hope to encourage others to invest in relationship building in their settings, to improve public involvement practices.
{"title":"Unexpected benefits: reflections on virtual relationship building within public involvement during the Covid-19 pandemic","authors":"Carmel McGrath, Katherine Baker, John McGavin, Michael Bahrami-Hessari, William Barney Jones, Lindsay Welch, Caroline Barker","doi":"10.14324/rfa.07.1.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/rfa.07.1.16","url":null,"abstract":"The Covid-19 pandemic reduced research collaborations with public contributors and prevented face-to-face interaction. The formation of Researcher Coffee Mornings within the Wessex region aimed to continue relationships between the research community and public through the pandemic. Researcher Coffee Mornings were regular Zoom meetings run by public involvement staff at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK. They were created to provide pastoral support and ‘check-ins’ between staff and public contributors during the Covid-19 pandemic. Reorganisation, implemented by public involvement staff but led by public contributors, meant that the events evolved over time. The Researcher Coffee Mornings were a means to share updates about research with the public. They were a safe space for involvement staff, researchers and the public to exchange knowledge and share experiences. This article highlights the intended and unexpected benefits of investing in relationships. We reflect on these benefits through the perspectives of the public involvement staff, public contributors and researchers. Investing in relationships has brought value to everyone involved. By demonstrating the benefits of providing regular, inclusive spaces for relationship building between the research community and public contributors, we hope to encourage others to invest in relationship building in their settings, to improve public involvement practices.","PeriodicalId":500657,"journal":{"name":"Research for all","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136306077","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Felicity K. Boardman, Corinna C. Clark, Rosanna Buck, Gillian Lewando Hundt
Art is increasingly being used by researchers as a medium to engage the public, yet evaluating and capturing impact remains challenging. We report an evaluation of a four-year public engagement project, I:DNA, designed to engage the public with research that explores the views and experiences of people with genetic conditions. An immersive art installation was exhibited at six scientific/cultural venues (2019–22), alongside several supplementary engagement activities, including talks, a game, ‘invisible theatre’, poetry workshops/performance and children’s art workshops. I:DNA reached over 26,500 people (online and in-person), and 268 people left some form of evaluation via postcards, online forms or emails. Through thematic analysis of this evaluation data, as well as the artistic outputs of supplementary activities, evidence of impact was identified in three key areas: changing views, inspiring behaviour change and supporting capacity for future public engagement. Implementation and evaluation of I:DNA highlights the challenges of evaluating the impact of complex arts-based public engagement projects, and the urgent need for methodological development to evaluate the processes by which impact occurs (not just the consequences of that impact), and the significance of venue and context, as well as the short-, medium- and long-term impacts of arts-based public engagement for both public and stakeholder groups.
{"title":"I:DNA – Evaluating the impact of public engagement with a multimedia art installation on genetic screening","authors":"Felicity K. Boardman, Corinna C. Clark, Rosanna Buck, Gillian Lewando Hundt","doi":"10.14324/rfa.07.1.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/rfa.07.1.15","url":null,"abstract":"Art is increasingly being used by researchers as a medium to engage the public, yet evaluating and capturing impact remains challenging. We report an evaluation of a four-year public engagement project, I:DNA, designed to engage the public with research that explores the views and experiences of people with genetic conditions. An immersive art installation was exhibited at six scientific/cultural venues (2019–22), alongside several supplementary engagement activities, including talks, a game, ‘invisible theatre’, poetry workshops/performance and children’s art workshops. I:DNA reached over 26,500 people (online and in-person), and 268 people left some form of evaluation via postcards, online forms or emails. Through thematic analysis of this evaluation data, as well as the artistic outputs of supplementary activities, evidence of impact was identified in three key areas: changing views, inspiring behaviour change and supporting capacity for future public engagement. Implementation and evaluation of I:DNA highlights the challenges of evaluating the impact of complex arts-based public engagement projects, and the urgent need for methodological development to evaluate the processes by which impact occurs (not just the consequences of that impact), and the significance of venue and context, as well as the short-, medium- and long-term impacts of arts-based public engagement for both public and stakeholder groups.","PeriodicalId":500657,"journal":{"name":"Research for all","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136306065","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：