Professor Mark Reed

If researchers want to build public trust, we need to learn how to listen reflectively, "navigating tensions between wanting to correct and being willing to change one’s mind...

...between being an expert in science, but not in someone else’s values; and between dominant scientific norms and multiple ways of knowing".

We often talk about how to get research into policy, but there is far less discussion about how we get evidence into practice within NGOs and non-profits. A paper shows that evidence use is heavily shaped by relationships and organisational constraints in professional practice.

Interestingly, the paper points out that factors relating to researchers themselves (like our own skills and awareness) are rarely studied in relation to impacts on professional practice, suggesting we may need to look closer to home when reflecting on the science-practice gap.

We often talk about how to get research into policy, but there is far less discussion about how we get evidence into practice within NGOs and non-profits. A paper shows that evidence use is heavily shaped by relationships and organisational constraints in professional practice.

The authors found that the most common factors influencing whether evidence gets used are the relationships between researchers and practitioners, the relevance of the evidence itself, and the capacity and resources of the organisations trying to use it.

Writing a strong REF impact case study means explaining what changed, how research contributed and why it mattered, supported by evidence of reach and significance. This new UPEN blog offers advice on building REF2029 case studies, using examples from parliamentary engagement...

This highlights the importance of making connections explicit, combining evidence that supports different parts of the narrative and keeping claims proportionate to the contribution made. Evidencing implementation can strengthen the account of why the contribution really mattered

Writing a strong REF impact case study means explaining what changed, how research contributed and why it mattered, supported by evidence of reach and significance. This new UPEN blog offers advice on building REF2029 case studies, using examples from parliamentary engagement...

One REF2021 case study featured from University of Lincoln brought together a research briefing, Conveners Group papers and minutes, testimony from senior parliamentary staff and data on the gender of committee witnesses.

Being a trusted adviser can include being openly critical of the organisation seeking advice. In Ilana Bolingford’s research with Australian law academics one participant described a relationship with a regulator combining criticism of its work with broad support for its mission.

Many of the researchers she interviewed felt their expertise was undervalued within their universities, with engagement often spilling beyond normal working hours. Ilana argues for dedicated workload allocations and recognition in appraisal and promotion decisions.

Being a trusted adviser can include being openly critical of the organisation seeking advice. In Ilana Bolingford’s research with Australian law academics one participant described a relationship with a regulator combining criticism of its work with broad support for its mission.

Although critical, this approach brought repeat opportunities for engagement. In my own work with governments and corporates, I have sought to build relationships around shared purposes while retaining the independence to question how those purposes are pursued.

Just stumbled across the idea of writing a news story from the future about the impacts you hope to see from your research (being used by colleagues in the Land Use for Net Zero Nature and People (LUNZ) Hub)...

Less structured and analytical than a logic model or theory of change, but I can imagine that this method forces you to really think about what your impact might look like in the real world, and the sorts of opposing commentary you would expect a balanced news outlet to source

This is one of the most useful guides to the sorts of impact claims you make from different types of impact - what's particularly insightful is the final two columns, differentiating between "permissible claims" and "prohibited leaps"...

“It feels like a genuine partnership of equals.” If it doesn't, then your coproduction probably isn't actually coproduced.

They have developed a free Community Research Resource Pack, with six worksheets covering everything from identifying priorities to research, analysis and action, alongside a Collaborative Poetics Resource Pack for participatory arts-based research.

“It feels like a genuine partnership of equals.” If it doesn't, then your coproduction probably isn't actually coproduced.

If you're still grappling with whether or not to keep engaging with X/Twitter, it is interesting to see what UK Higher Education Institutes are doing...

Switching to new alternatives is a trade-off between your values and the reach you want your research to have. However if you want your reach to be inclusive, you have to weigh up the continued online abuse reported on X against your desire to reach those who still mainly use X.

If you're still grappling with whether or not to keep engaging with X/Twitter, it is interesting to see what UK Higher Education Institutes are doing...

100% of UK HEIs had X/Twitter feeds in 2017, dropping to 80% now according to a new paper by Katy Jordan, and earlier this year, Andy Tattersall showed that of those still on the platform, only 46% were still actively posting.

Responsible impact planning should ask what could go wrong, who might be harmed and what will happen after the funding ends. This new paper by Jan vom Brocke and colleagues provides a practical 40-question checklist for planning, delivering, measuring and communicating impact.

Some of the most useful questions include: - Have the people affected by the problem helped shape the research? - What will intended users be able to do differently? - What evidence would indicate failure or unintended harm? - Who will maintain the outputs after the project ends?

Responsible impact planning should ask what could go wrong, who might be harmed and what will happen after the funding ends. This new paper by Jan vom Brocke and colleagues provides a practical 40-question checklist for planning, delivering, measuring and communicating impact.

Wilfred Mijnhardt has combined 20 different impact evaluation frameworks used by Universities and Business Schools internationally to create this codex - a really useful source of ideas for measurable impacts you can plan for or evaluate across a range of categories...