Australia’s proposed Banking Executive Accountability Regime:regulatory panopticon or fail-safe?

It is difficult to ignore the widespread concern over the corporate culture of Australia's banking industry. This growing concern has led to close scrutiny of banks and subsequently triggered the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to regulate what it deems as bad corporate culture

Evaluating research impact: The development of a research for impact tool

© 2016 Tsey, Lawson, Kinchin, Bainbridge, McCalman, Watkin, Cadet-James and Rossetto. Introduction: This paper examines the process of developing a Research for Impact Tool in the contexts of general fiscal constraint, increased competition for funding, perennial concerns about the over-researching of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues without demonstrable benefits as well as conceptual and methodological difficulties of evaluating research impact. The aim is to highlight the challenges and opportunities involved in evaluating research impact to serve as resource for potential users of the research for impact tool and others interested in assessing the impact of research. Materials and methods: A combination of literature reviews, workshops with researchers, and reflections by project team members and partners using participatory snowball techniques. Results: Assessing research impact is perceived to be difficult, akin to the so-called "wicked problem," but not impossible. Heuristic and collaborative approach to research that takes the expectations of research users, research participants and the funders of research offers a pragmatic solution to evaluating research impact. The logic of the proposed Research for Impact Tool is based on the understanding that the value of research is to create evidence and/or products to support smarter decisions so as to improve the human condition. Research is, therefore, of limited value unless the evidence created is used to make smarter decisions for the betterment of society. A practical way of approaching research impact is, therefore, to start with the decisions confronting decision makers whether they are government policymakers, industry, professional practitioners, or households and the extent to which the research supports them to make smarter policy and practice decisions and the knock-on consequences of doing so. Embedded at each step in the impact planning and tracking process is the need for appropriate mix of expertise, capacity enhancement, and collaborative participatory learning-by-doing approaches. Discussion: The tool was developed in the context of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research but the basic idea that the way to assess research impact is to start upfront with the information needs of decisions makers is equally applicable to research in other settings, both applied (horizontal) and basic (vertical) research. The tool will be further tested and evaluated with researchers over the next 2 years (2016/17). The decision by the Australian Government to include 'industry engagement' and 'impact' as additions to the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) quality measures from 2018 makes the Research for Impact Tool a timely development. The wider challenge is to engage with major Australian research funding agencies to ensure consistent alignment and approaches across research users, communities, and funders in evaluating impact

The availability, appropriateness, and integration of services to promote Indigenous Australian youth wellbeing and mental health : Indigenous youth and service provider perspectives

Concerns about the complexity, fragmentation and inefficiency of Australia’s current youth mental health service systems have led policy makers to seek improvements through a shift to community-based solutions. However, there is little evidence of how communities can make this shift. This paper examines the efforts of one Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter, respectfully, Indigenous) community—Yarrabah in north Queensland—to develop strategies for mental health and wellbeing service system improvements for school-aged youth (5–18 years). The research was co-designed with Yarrabah’s community-controlled health service and explores the perceptions of Yarrabah youth and service providers. Iterative grounded theory methods were used to collect and analyse data from 32 youth aged 11–24 years and 24 service providers. Youth were reluctant to seek help, and did so only if they felt a sense of safety, trust, relationality and consistency with providers. Young people’s four suggestions for improvement were access to (1) information and awareness about mental health; (2) youth facilities, spaces and activities; (3) safe and available points of contact; and (4) support for recovery from mental illness. Service providers highlighted an appetite for youth-guided community change and recommended five improvement strategies: (1) listening to youth, (2) linking with community members, (3) providing wellbeing promotion programs, (4) intervening early, and (5) advocating to address the determinants of youth mental health. Overall, both groups realised a disjunct between youth need and service provision, but a willingness to work together for systems change. This study demonstrates the importance of community-driven efforts that harness both youth and service providers’ perspectives, and suggests a need for ongoing dialogue as the basis for co-designing and implementing improvements to wellbeing supports and mental health services for Indigenous youth

No one's discussing the elephant in the room: Contemplating questions of research impact and benefit in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian health research

© 2015 Bainbridge et al. Background: There remains a concern that Indigenous Australians have been over-researched without corresponding improvements in their health; this trend is applicable to most Indigenous populations globally. This debate article has a dual purpose: 1) to open a frank conversation about the value of research to Indigenous Australian populations; and 2) to stimulate ways of thinking about potential resolutions to the lack of progress made in the Indigenous research benefit debate. Discussion: Capturing the meaning of research benefit takes the form of ethical value-oriented methodological considerations in the decision-making processes of Indigenous research endeavours. Because research practices come from Western knowledge bases, attaining such positions in research means reconciling both Indigenous and Western knowledge systems to produce new methodologies that guide planning, evaluating and monitoring of research practices as necessary. Increasingly, more sophisticated performance measures have been implemented to ensure academic impact and benefits are captured. Assessing societal and other non-academic impacts and benefits however, has not been accorded corresponding attention. Research reform has only focussed on research translation in more recent years. The research impact debate must take account of the various standards of accountability (to whom), impact priorities (for whom), positive and negative impacts, and biases that operate in describing impact and measuring benefit. Summary: A perennial question in Indigenous research discourse is whether the abundance of research conducted; purportedly to improve health, is justified and benefits Indigenous people in ways that are meaningful and valued by them. Different research stakeholders have different conceptions of the value and nature of research, its conduct, what it should achieve and the kinds of benefits expected. We need to work collaboratively and listen more closely to the voice of Indigenous Australians to better understand, demonstrate and measure health research benefits. The authors conclude that as an imperative, a systematic benefit assessment strategy that includes identification of research priorities and planning, monitoring and evaluation components needs to be developed and implemented across research projects. In Indigenous health research, this will often mean adopting a benefit-led approach by changing the way research is done and preferencing alternative research methodologies. As a point of departure to improving impact and reaching mutually beneficial outcomes for researchers and partners in Indigenous health research, we need to routinise the assessment of benefit from outset of research as one of the standards toward which we work

“We are not stray leaves blowing about in the wind”: exploring the impact of Family Wellbeing empowerment research, 1998–2021

Background: An Aboriginal-developed empowerment and social and emotional wellbeing program, known as Family Wellbeing (FWB), has been found to strengthen the protective factors that help Indigenous Australians to deal with the legacy of colonisation and intergenerational trauma. This article reviews the research that has accompanied the implementation of the program, over a 23 year period. The aim is to assess the long-term impact of FWB research and identify the key enablers of research impact and the limitations of the impact assessment exercise. This will inform more comprehensive monitoring of research impact into the future. Methods: To assess impact, the study took an implementation science approach, incorporating theory of change and service utilisation frameworks, to create a logic model underpinned by Indigenous research principles. A research impact narrative was developed based on mixed methods analysis of publicly available data on: 1) FWB program participation; 2) research program funding; 3) program outcome evaluation (nine studies); and 4) accounts of research utilisation (seven studies). Results: Starting from a need for research on empowerment identified by research users, an investment of $2.3 million in research activities over 23 years produced a range of research outputs that evidenced social and emotional wellbeing benefits arising from participation in the FWB program. Accounts of research utilisation confirmed the role of research outputs in educating participants about the program, and thus, facilitating more demand (and funding acquisition) for FWB. Overall research contributed to 5,405 recorded participants accessing the intervention. The key enablers of research impact were; 1) the research was user- and community-driven; 2) a long-term mutually beneficial partnership between research users and researchers; 3) the creation of a body of knowledge that demonstrated the impact of the FWB intervention via different research methods; 4) the universality of the FWB approach which led to widespread application. Conclusions: The FWB research impact exercise reinforced the view that assessing research impact is best approached as a “wicked problem” for which there are no easy fixes. It requires flexible, open-ended, collaborative learning-by-doing approaches to build the evidence base over time. Steps and approaches that research groups might take to build the research impact knowledge base within their disciplines are discussed