TY - JOUR
T1 - Research for impact
T2 - three keys for research implementation
AU - Jones, Kirsty
AU - Bice, Sara
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Impact is essential to research, policymaking and implementation. Yet impact is often misunderstood or poorly defined. For public policy scholars, concerns about impact exist largely on two planes. On one level scholars seek to understand the impacts of policy interventions. On a second level scholars aim for their public policy research to generate real-world impact. These two concerns–the “what” and the “how” of research–are often treated separately. In this article, we argue that it is worthwhile joining up these concerns about impact. This is possible, we suggest, through a combination of logic models and a novel rethink of the usual “pathway to research impact”. The article introduces two research co-design tools aimed at improving the likelihood of achieving research impact, while also improving understanding of those impacts: an integrated knowledge translation (IKT)-informed logic model and an implementation science (IS)-derived Pathway to Impact. We draw on a multi-year research co-creation project to develop the Infrastructure Engagement Excellence (IEE) Standards for Australia’s $250 billion infrastructure sector. This co-creation project illustrates the development of the logic model, Pathway to Impact and consequent research co-design process. Together, these tools can support policy scholars’ efforts to produce impactful research while also creating better understanding of policy and practice impacts, and how to achieve them. We conclude that genuine and robust research co-design requires researchers to commit not only to undertaking research with rigor, but also a willingness to dedicate thought and effort to the relationship between what research activities are carried out and how those processes can advance policy and practice outcomes and impact.
AB - Impact is essential to research, policymaking and implementation. Yet impact is often misunderstood or poorly defined. For public policy scholars, concerns about impact exist largely on two planes. On one level scholars seek to understand the impacts of policy interventions. On a second level scholars aim for their public policy research to generate real-world impact. These two concerns–the “what” and the “how” of research–are often treated separately. In this article, we argue that it is worthwhile joining up these concerns about impact. This is possible, we suggest, through a combination of logic models and a novel rethink of the usual “pathway to research impact”. The article introduces two research co-design tools aimed at improving the likelihood of achieving research impact, while also improving understanding of those impacts: an integrated knowledge translation (IKT)-informed logic model and an implementation science (IS)-derived Pathway to Impact. We draw on a multi-year research co-creation project to develop the Infrastructure Engagement Excellence (IEE) Standards for Australia’s $250 billion infrastructure sector. This co-creation project illustrates the development of the logic model, Pathway to Impact and consequent research co-design process. Together, these tools can support policy scholars’ efforts to produce impactful research while also creating better understanding of policy and practice impacts, and how to achieve them. We conclude that genuine and robust research co-design requires researchers to commit not only to undertaking research with rigor, but also a willingness to dedicate thought and effort to the relationship between what research activities are carried out and how those processes can advance policy and practice outcomes and impact.
KW - Integrated knowledge translation
KW - community engagement
KW - infrastructure
KW - pathway to impact
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85117154099&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/25741292.2021.1936761
DO - 10.1080/25741292.2021.1936761
M3 - Comment/debate
SN - 2574-1292
VL - 4
SP - 392
EP - 412
JO - Policy Design and Practice
JF - Policy Design and Practice
IS - 3
ER -