Research communication for immediate impact: climate adaptation in Australia

Abstract Research into climate change adaptation is challenged by funding organisations to demonstrate immediate research impact through near term reference in sector- specific communication and policy documents. Critically, research funded to inform decision makers and current policy about adapting to climate change must engage with end users and implement communication initiatives that lead to research adoption. Moreover, researchers need to better understand the components that contribute to effective engagement and communication to plan successful strategies to engage with the range of vulnerable sectors affected by climate change. Given the importance of research application, Primary Investigators for National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) funded projects had to consider end user engagement and communication. This paper identifies some common factors in three NCCARF cases which successfully demonstrated swift access to climate adaptation research in three sectors; human health, emergency management, and settlements and infrastructure. Early and ongoing engagement between researchers and the intended knowledge users shaped both the research focus and output formats. Stakeholders involved in coordinated and sustained communication programs disseminated and promoted the research through multiple channels. These agents of dissemination included; funders (NCCARF, universities and industry bodies); information users (government agencies and professional bodies), and both mass media and social media

Measuring Impact: The Art, Science and Mystery of Nonprofit News

This report seeks to answer the two-pronged question, "What is 'impact,' and how can it be measured consistently across nonprofit newsrooms?" A review of recent, relevant literature and our informal conversations with experts in the field reveal growing ambitions toward the goal of developing a common framework for assessing journalism's impact, yet few definitive conclusions about how exactly to reach that framework. This is especially the case when journalism's "impact" is defined by its ultimate social outcomes -- not merely the familiar metrics of audience reach and website traffic. As with all journalism, the frame defines the story, and audience is all-important. Defining "impact" as a social outcome proves a complicated proposition that generally evolves according to the constituency attempting to define it. Because various stakeholders have their own reasons for wanting to measure the impact of news, understanding those interests is an essential step in crafting measurement tools and interpreting the metrics they produce. Limitations of impact assessment arise from several sources: the assumptions invariably made about the product and its outcome; the divergent and overlapping categories into which nonprofit journalism falls in the digital age; and the intractable problem of attempting to quantify "quality." These formidable challenges, though, don't seem to deter people from posing and attempting to find answers to the impact question. Various models for assessing impact are continually being tinkered with, and lessons from similar efforts in other fields offer useful insight for this journalistic endeavor. And past research has pointed to specific needs and suggestions for ways to advance the effort. From all of this collective wisdom, several principles emerge as the cornerstones upon which to build a common framework for impact assessment

The impact generated by public and charity-funded research in the UK: A systematic literature review

Objective: To identify, synthesize and critically assess the empirical evidence of the impact generated by public and charity funded health research in the United Kingdom. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of the empirical evidence published in English in peer-reviewed journals between 2006 and 2017. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected and their findings were analysed using the Payback Framework into five main categories: knowledge, benefits to future research and research use, benefits from informing policy and product development, health and health sector benefits and broader economic benefits. We assessed the studies for risk of selection, reporting and funding bias. Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies (10 out of 13) assessed impact at multiple domains including the main 5 key themes of the Payback Framework. All of them showed a positive impact of funded research on outcomes. Of those studies, one presented low risk of bias (8%), 6 studies were classified as presenting moderate risk of bias (46%) and 6 studies presented high risk of bias (46%). Conclusions: Empirical evidence on the impact of public and charity funded research is still limited and subject to funding and selection bias. More work is needed to establish the causal effects of funded research on academic outcomes, policy, practice and the broader economy

Proposing a life cycle land use impact calculation methodology

The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) community is yet to come to a consensus on a methodology to incorporate land use in LCA, still struggling with what exactly should be assessed and which indicators should be used. To solve this problem we start from concepts and models describing how ecosystems function and sustain, in order to understand how land use affects them. Earlier our research group presented a methodology based on the ecosystem exergy concept. This concept as based on the hypothesis that ecosystems develop towards more effective degradation of exergy fluxes passing through the system and is derived from two axioms: the principles of (i) maximum exergy storage and the (ii) maximum exergy dissipation. This concept aiming at the area of protection natural environment is different from conventional exergy analysis in LCA focusing on natural resources. To prevent confusion, the ecosystem exergy concept is further referred to as the MAximum Storage and Dissipation concept (MASD concept). In this paper we present how this concept identifies end-point impacts, mid-point impacts and mid-point indicators. The identified end-point impacts to assess are Ecosystem Structural Quality (ESQ) and Ecosystem Functional Quality (EFQ). In order to quantify these end-point impacts a dynamic multi-indicator set is proposed for quantifying the mid-point impacts on soil fertility, biodiversity and biomass production (quantifying the ESQ) and soil structure, vegetation structure and on-site water balance (quantifying the EFQ). Further we present an impact calculation method suitable for different environmental assessment tools and demonstrate the incorporation of the methodology in LCA

Project Retrosight. Understanding the returns from cardiovascular and stroke research: Policy Report

Copyright @ 2011 RAND Europe. All rights reserved. The full text article and the summary of the article are both available via the links below.This project explores the impacts arising from cardiovascular and stroke research funded 15-20 years ago and attempts to draw out aspects of the research, researcher or environment that are associated with high or low impact. The project is a case study-based review of 29 cardiovascular and stroke research grants, funded in Australia, Canada and UK between 1989 and 1993. The case studies focused on the individual grants but considered the development of the investigators and ideas involved in the research projects from initiation to the present day. Grants were selected through a stratified random selection approach that aimed to include both high- and low-impact grants. The key messages are as follows: 1) The cases reveal that a large and diverse range of impacts arose from the 29 grants studied. 2) There are variations between the impacts derived from basic biomedical and clinical research. 3) There is no correlation between knowledge production and wider impacts 4) The majority of economic impacts identified come from a minority of projects. 5) We identified factors that appear to be associated with high and low impact. This report presents the key observations of the study and an overview of the methods involved. It has been written for funders of biomedical and health research and health services, health researchers, and policy makers in those fields. It will also be of interest to those involved in research and impact evaluation.This study was initiated with internal funding from RAND Europe and HERG, with continuing funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. The UK Stroke Association and the British Heart Foundation provided support in kind through access to their archives