Sci­ence Im­pact

To what end are you work­ing?

AQ: Australian Quarterly - - CONTENTS - DR ANNE-MA­REE DOWD, DR THOMAS KEENAN & DR KAREN COS­GROVE

To what end are you work­ing?

To what end are you work­ing? Pre­sum­ably for the prin­ci­ple that sci­ence’s sole aim must be to lighten the bur­den of human ex­is­tence.

If the sci­en­tists, brought to heel by self-in­ter­ested rulers, limit them­selves to pil­ing up knowl­edge for knowl­edge’s sake, then sci­ence can be crip­pled and our new ma­chines will lead to noth­ing but new im­po­si­tions.

Berthold Brecht (1898–1956) Gallileo, Scene 14

The fun­da­men­tal pur­pose of the sci­en­tific en­deav­our is change. Even the most ba­sic or blue-sky re­search seeks to lay the foun­da­tions of knowl­edge that can one day be trans­lated to the ad­van­tage of so­ci­ety. Yet, though fun­da­men­tal, how sci­ence quan­ti­fies and un­der­stands im­pact is com­plex.

In gen­eral, most mod­ern re­searchers will be fa­mil­iar with im­pact as­sess­ments that tend to con­sider only the di­rect im­pacts, that is, in iso­la­tion of broader ef­fects that might lie be­yond their field of re­search, or that seem too the­o­ret­i­cal.

Mean­while, many re­search or­gan­i­sa­tions have moved to a more in­te­grated model of im­pact man­age­ment. Un­like im­pact as­sess­ment, whereby im­pacts are con­sid­ered in iso­la­tion of their broader con­text, im­pact man­age­ment is a strate­gic ap­proach to iden­ti­fy­ing ben­e­fits through­out the life of a re­search pro­ject or in­vest­ment. While this move is wel­comed, we ar­gue that the cur­rent prac­tices of re­search as­sess­ment and eval­u­a­tion re­main in­suf­fi­ciently fo­cused on pro­vid­ing value to all stake­hold­ers through­out the re­search value chain.

Most, if not all, sci­ence, tech­nol­ogy,

en­gi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics (STEM) re­search nodes in­vest in a merit-based as­sess­ment which is grounded in tech­no­cratic, rather than a whole-of-re­search value chain, fo­cus. 1 In many in­stances – and un­like the so­cial sciences – STEM sci­en­tists ob­ject to re­search fund­ing be­ing cou­pled to ed­u­ca­tion or out­reach ef­forts. 2

A study by Tretkoff, cited in Nagy et al., posited that “many sci­en­tists are un­happy with the broader im­pacts re­quire­ments, and feel they should be funded based on the qual­ity of their re­search, not for out­reach” … and… ”many physi­cists feel they don't have the ex­per­tise to do out­reach ac­tiv­i­ties.” One re­spon­dent re­ported “she thinks ed­u­ca­tion and out­reach should be en­cour­aged but shouldn't be a re­quire­ment for re­search fund­ing.”

It was re­ported, “[I]ndeed, some sci­en­tists, es­pe­cially those ap­ply­ing for their first grants, find the broader im­pacts re­quire­ment con­fus­ing, bur­den­some and puni­tive.” 3 In most in­stances, while STEM sci­en­tists un­der­take im­pact as­sess­ments, gen­er­ally these as­sess­ments are un­der­taken by mem­bers of the re­search team and do not ex­tend be­yond academia. 4 The over­all find­ings of the Nagy et al.'s re­search in­di­cated that the “broader im­pacts cri­te­rion is in­ter­preted by many sci­en­tists as an in­tro­duc­tion of ex­tra­ne­ous po­lit­i­cal, cul­tural, or eco­nomic con­cerns into ba­sic re­search”. 5

Putting it sim­ply, we con­tend (a) that

In many in­stances – and un­like the so­cial sciences – STEM sci­en­tists ob­ject to re­search fund­ing be­ing cou­pled to ed­u­ca­tion or out­reach ef­forts.

there does not ap­pear to be any real ef­fort by STEM sci­en­tists to adopt a holis­tic ap­proach to man­ag­ing re­search im­pacts across the en­tire re­search value chain; and (b) a con­flict of in­ter­est ex­ists if the as­sess­ment re­lies on this core net­work node, if for no other rea­son than that core nodes re­in­force the sta­tus quo.

Ar­guably, the cur­rent in­struc­tion for un­der­tak­ing im­pact as­sess­ments is idio­syn­cratic and bi­ased. Apart from a few ex­am­ples6, the re­search sec­tor has only been “dab­bling” in an im­pact ap­proach to re­search in­vest­ment and de­liv­ery. Rather than con­sid­er­ing their broader im­pact ac­tiv­i­ties7,8 pri­mary re­search in­ves­ti­ga­tors tend to adopt es­tab­lished met­rics and data col­lec­tion meth­ods

There is a con­struc­tive and lively dis­cus­sion to be had about how we shift cul­tures, val­ues, at­ti­tudes and be­hav­iours to im­prove re­search in­vest­ment and the de­liv­ery of im­pact.

that are nu­anced from a per­sonal and/ or an in­sti­tu­tional per­spec­tive.

It will likely be con­sid­ered a con­tro­ver­sial call to rec­om­mend the re­search sec­tor move away from long en­trenched tra­di­tions, com­plete with val­ues, rewards, sys­tems, and pro­cesses, to a sys­tem that es­tab­lishes a strate­gic man­age­ment of im­pact. We do, how­ever, feel that a dis­cus­sion for such a shift is nec­es­sary. Such a shift is re­quired to make re­searchers more ac­count­able for their im­pact (or lack thereof ), es­pe­cially given the sig­nif­i­cant level of public in­vest­ment in re­search, most no­tably, within STEM fields.

There is a con­struc­tive and lively dis­cus­sion to be had about how we shift cul­tures, val­ues, at­ti­tudes and be­hav­iours to im­prove re­search in­vest­ment and the de­liv­ery of im­pact for the ben­e­fit of the na­tion and the world.

Re­search as­sess­ment and eval­u­a­tion method­olo­gies

Part of the prob­lem re­mains that, ex­cept for a few emerg­ing method­olo­gies, there is an ab­sence of ef­fec­tive sys­tems which en­cour­age the adop­tion of a holis­tic ap­proach to re­search im­pact as­sess­ment. Ideally, this can be achieved by over­haul­ing the fac­ulty-re­ward sys­tem with a broad shift in the at­ti­tudes of re­search teams and, in par­tic­u­lar, of pro­fes­sors, es­pe­cially those on pro­mo­tion and ten­ure com­mit­tees. 9

We recog­nise that sci­en­tists are not solely re­spon­si­ble for de­liv­er­ing im­pact; the ‘re­search' team charged with the de­liv­ery of im­pact is much wider than in­di­vid­ual re­searchers alone. Re­spon­si­ble Re­search and In­no­va­tion (RRI) ap­proaches, and the role of knowl­edge bro­kers, bound­ary or­gan­i­sa­tions and bound­ary in­di­vid­u­als who are reg­u­larly iden­ti­fied as ‘bound­ary span­ners' or ‘bound­ary agents' , also play an im­por­tant role in pro­vid­ing a nexus be­tween sci­ence and end users, thus as­sist­ing in se­cur­ing a “so­cial li­cence to op­er­ate”. 11,12 There is also a need for strate­gic man­age­ment ap­proaches to as­sess re­search im­pacts, in­clud­ing holis­tic en­gage­ment strate­gies that go be­yond im­me­di­ate academia.

By iden­ti­fy­ing and link­ing ac­tiv­i­ties through­out the re­search value chain, and by gath­er­ing data from a range of stake­hold­ers, it is pos­si­ble to as­sess a spec­trum of po­si­tions and per­spec­tives in re­la­tion to the man­age­ment of im­pact as­sess­ment. By adopt­ing a mixed method of as­sess­ment and ap­ply­ing it through a broad im­pact-driven lens, re­search im­pact as­sess­ments will not only re­in­force knowl­edge pro­duc­tion, they will recog­nise and value public en­gage­ment in sci­ence as es­sen­tial for best prac­tice across re­search in­sti­tu­tions, fund­ing bod­ies and com­mu­ni­ties alike.

Leav­ing academia to trans­form the in­no­va­tion sys­tem has ar­guably re­sulted in the as­sess­ment process be­ing turned into an aca­demic ex­er­cise, one where the fo­cus lies on find­ing met­rics/ in­di­ca­tors13, over other meth­ods such as Re­spon­si­ble Re­search & In­no­va­tion (RRI). 14

Schomberg cited in Owen et al., 15 de­scribes Re­spon­si­ble Re­search and In­no­va­tion as: a trans­par­ent, interactiv­e process by which so­ci­etal ac­tors and in­no­va­tors be­come mu­tu­ally re­spon­sive to each other with a view on the (eth­i­cal) ac­cept­abil­ity, sus­tain­abil­ity and so­ci­etal de­sir­abil­ity of the in­no­va­tion process and its mar­ketable prod­ucts (in order to al­low a proper em­bed­ding of sci­en­tific and tech­no­log­i­cal ad­vances in our so­ci­ety).

There is a grow­ing in­ter­na­tional shift to­ward the mea­sure­ment of the broader im­pact of sci­ence, par­tic­u­larly in the con­text of pub­licly funded re­search or­gan­i­sa­tions.

[An] in­no­va­tive im­pact man­age­ment sys­tem will re­quire stake­hold­ers to recast how they talk about, mea­sure and man­age risks, and pos­i­tive and neg­a­tive im­pacts.

To date, aca­demic re­search ini­tia­tive has been mea­sured on in­puts (such as ex­ter­nal fund­ing, ded­i­cated re­search space, in­fra­struc­ture) and, more re­cently, on out­puts such as in­ter­na­tional data­bases rank­ing pub­li­ca­tion per­for­mance, and ci­ta­tion in­dices.

Trans­form­ing from an idio­syn­cratic and lin­ear ap­proach to one that en­dorses a holis­tic ap­proach to as­sess­ing re­search im­pacts, is not only sen­si­ble but nec­es­sary. It re­quires a dra­matic ex­pan­sion of who are con­sid­ered to be the stake­hold­ers in re­search, in­clud­ing for ex­am­ple, lo­cal com­mu­nity mem­bers with lo­cal knowl­edge, civil so­ci­ety, pol­i­cy­mak­ers, for­mal in­ter­est groups, and fund­ing bod­ies.

An as­sess­ment method­ol­ogy that can en­gage these pe­riph­ery stake­hold­ers will ex­pand an aca­demic's per­cep­tion of what con­sti­tutes a re­search team, and will make sci­ence more ac­count­able, while gar­ner­ing more public sup­port for re­search fund­ing.

Shift­ing fo­cus, im­pacts man­age­ment

Not­with­stand­ing a gen­eral ap­a­thy by the STEM sciences to strate­gi­cally man­age broad im­pacts, there is a grow­ing in­ter­na­tional shift to­ward the mea­sure­ment of the broader im­pact of sci­ence16, par­tic­u­larly in the con­text of pub­licly funded re­search or­gan­i­sa­tions.

The UK Re­search Ex­cel­lence Frame­work, the Swedish Re­search Coun­cil, the Na­tional Sci­ence Foun­da­tion (United States of Amer­ica), and the In­ter­na­tional School of Re­search Im­pact As­sess­ment have all flagged a de­lib­er­ate shift away from tra­di­tional mod­els of im­pact.

This move­ment goes be­yond solely as­sess­ing con­tri­bu­tions to aca­demic knowl­edge (i.e. the de­liv­ery of ‘ex­cel­lent sci­ence') and is in­creas­ingly fo­cused on how sci­ence has de­liv­ered tan­gi­ble ben­e­fits (so­cial, en­vi­ron­men­tal, eco­nomic) to the so­ci­eties in which re­search or­gan­i­sa­tions op­er­ate.

As with any large struc­tural change, to reach this goal of adopt­ing a wide­view in­no­va­tive im­pact man­age­ment sys­tem will re­quire stake­hold­ers to recast (with con­sen­sus) how they talk about, mea­sure and man­age risks, and pos­i­tive and neg­a­tive im­pacts.

Tretkoff, in Nagy et al., makes the ar­gu­ment: Such a sys­tem in­cludes good gov­er­nance, mer­it­ing in­clu­sive­ness, open­ness, fair­ness, trans­parency, and ac­count­abil­ity across the re­search value chain. Fur­ther it has been claimed pri­or­ity should be given for iden­ti­fy­ing valid and fea­si­ble ways to as­sess re­search im­pact more ob­jec­tively. 17… and … [A]n im­por­tant con­tri­bu­tion to the field would be the devel­op­ment of multiple well-de­fined mea­sures, con­sist­ing of both hard and soft data, which can be sys­tem­at­i­cally an­a­lysed”. 18

Nagy, like Dowd et al. and Owen et al., ar­gues the need for the whole re­search value chain to change. 19,20,21 This in­cludes not only the “busi­ness/ cor­po­rate” side of the chain, but also the fun­ders and in­vest­ment de­ci­sion­mak­ers who need to ap­proach their pro­cesses from an im­pact per­spec­tive.

Sim­i­larly, the Euro­pean Commission recog­nised the ben­e­fit of man­ag­ing broad im­pacts and adopted an ex­tended im­pact as­sess­ment (EXIA) frame­work when con­sid­er­ing pol­icy devel­op­ment. 22 The pur­pose of EXIA is to carry out a more in-depth anal­y­sis of the po­ten­tial im­pacts of the pol­icy pro­posed on the econ­omy, so­ci­ety and the en­vi­ron­ment; and to con­sult with in­ter­ested par­ties and rel­e­vant ex­perts ac­cord­ing to the min­i­mum stan­dards for con­sul­ta­tion. 23

It is crit­i­cal to re­mem­ber that chang­ing our un­der­stand­ing of im­pact will not only ben­e­fit the qual­ity of re­search un­der­taken, and gal­vanise the so­cial li­cence for sci­ence, it will im­prove the out­comes for the whole of the value chain that re­lies on, or in­ter­acts with, the knowl­edge gen­er­ated, in­clud­ing

Chang­ing our un­der­stand­ing of im­pact will not only ben­e­fit the qual­ity of re­search… it will im­prove the out­comes for the whole of the value chain that re­lies on the knowl­edge gen­er­ated.

Broader im­pacts re­fer to spe­cific, de­sired so­ci­etal out­comes, such as the par­tic­i­pa­tion of un­der­rep­re­sented groups in STEM; public sci­en­tific lit­er­acy; and part­ner­ships be­tween academia, in­dus­try, and oth­ers.

gov­ern­ments who are keen to get re­turns on their ex­pen­di­ture.

Ac­cord­ing to the In­ter­na­tional School on Re­search Im­pact As­sess­ment (ISRIA): As gov­ern­ments, fund­ing agen­cies and re­search or­gan­i­sa­tions world­wide seek to max­imise both the fi­nan­cial and non-fi­nan­cial re­turns on in­vest­ment in re­search, the way the re­search process is or­gan­ised and funded is be­com­ing in­creas­ingly under scru­tiny. There are grow­ing de­mands and as­pi­ra­tions to mea­sure re­search im­pact (be­yond aca­demic pub­li­ca­tions), to un­der­stand how sci­ence works, and to op­ti­mise its so­ci­etal and eco­nomic im­pact. In re­sponse, a mul­ti­dis­ci­plinary prac­tice called re­search im­pact as­sess­ment is rapidly devel­op­ing. Given that the prac­tice is still in its for­ma­tive stage, sys­tem­a­tised rec­om­men­da­tions or ac­cepted stan­dards for prac­ti­tion­ers (such as fun­ders and those re­spon­si­ble for man­ag­ing re­search pro­jects) across coun­tries or dis­ci­plines to guide re­search im­pact as­sess­ment are not yet avail­able. 24

As such, ISRIA posits that, “most re­search and fund­ing in­sti­tu­tions are sim­ply lack­ing in their ca­pac­ity to meet grow­ing de­mands and as­pi­ra­tions to mea­sure re­search im­pact (be­yond aca­demic pub­li­ca­tions), to un­der­stand how sci­ence works, and to op­ti­mise its so­ci­etal and eco­nomic im­pact”.

Sim­i­larly, the US Na­tional Sci­ence Foun­da­tion es­tab­lished a mer­its-based pol­icy whereby all fund­ing pro­pos­als sub­mit­ted to the agency would be eval­u­ated on two cri­te­ria: in­tel­lec­tual merit and broader im­pacts. 25 Broader im­pacts re­fer to spe­cific, de­sired so­ci­etal out­comes, such as the par­tic­i­pa­tion of un­der­rep­re­sented groups in sci­ence, tech­nol­ogy, en­gi­neer­ing, and

Trans­form­ing from a lin­ear re­search-to-im­pact ap­proach to an os­cil­lat­ing and strate­gi­cally mo­ti­vated ap­proach to man­ag­ing im­pacts, re­quires human cap­i­tal and so­cial cap­i­tal.

math­e­mat­ics (STEM); en­hanc­ing STEM ed­u­ca­tion; public sci­en­tific lit­er­acy and en­gage­ment; and part­ner­ships be­tween academia, in­dus­try, and oth­ers. 26

Trans­for­ma­tion

As Aus­tralia's na­tional sci­ence agency, CSIRO takes the as­sess­ment of the im­pact it de­liv­ers very se­ri­ously. Since 2015, CSIRO eval­u­a­tions have fo­cused pri­mar­ily on ben­e­fit-cost analy­ses (BCAS), with re­sult­ing re­turn on in­vest­ment (ROI) cal­cu­la­tions. We ac­cept that BCA is not al­ways the most rel­e­vant form of anal­y­sis for spe­cific types of im­pact; an is­sue we are ad­dress­ing through the up­date of our eval­u­a­tion guide.

The up­dated guide will re­flect the grow­ing ma­tu­rity of the im­pact ap­proach within CSRIO; and will en­cour­age the con­sid­er­a­tion of eval­u­a­tion method­olo­gies that are more closely aligned with the types of im­pacts sort through spe­cific re­search ac­tiv­i­ties, rather than de­fault­ing to the BCA ap­proach. This up­dated guide will be avail­able pub­licly (through the CSIRO web­site) in early 2020.

For ex­am­ple, we recog­nise there is a ben­e­fit of con­sid­er­ing the so­cial re­turn on in­vest­ment (SROI). So­cial re­turn on in­vest­ment is a prin­ci­ples-based method for mea­sur­ing ex­tra-fi­nan­cial value (i.e., en­vi­ron­men­tal and so­cial value not cur­rently re­flected in con­ven­tional fi­nan­cial ac­counts) rel­a­tive to re­sources in­vested. De­vel­oped from tra­di­tional cost-ben­e­fit anal­y­sis and so­cial ac­count­ing, SROI is a par­tic­i­pa­tive ap­proach that cap­tures in mon­e­tised form the value of a wide range of out­comes, whether these al­ready have a fi­nan­cial value or not. 27

At CSIRO we ar­gue that ar­tic­u­lat­ing the im­pact path­way (in­puts, ac­tiv­i­ties, out­puts, out­comes, im­pacts) as­so­ci­ated with the eval­u­a­tion tar­get is es­sen­tial to recog­nis­ing and man­ag­ing im­pacts through­out the re­search value chain.

Trans­form­ing from a lin­ear re­search-to-im­pact ap­proach to an os­cil­lat­ing and strate­gi­cally mo­ti­vated ap­proach to man­ag­ing im­pacts, re­quires human cap­i­tal and so­cial cap­i­tal that in­clude bound­ary or­gan­i­sa­tions and/or in­di­vid­u­als. Build­ing re­la­tion­ships through en­gage­ment pro­vides op­por­tu­ni­ties to link academia with in­dus­try, in­ter­est groups and in­di­vid­u­als who have an in­ter­est in the re­search pro­ject.

En­gag­ing bound­ary or­gan­i­sa­tions en­ables them to more quickly in­te­grate sci­en­tific find­ings and prac­ti­tioner ex­pe­ri­ences to cre­ate us­able knowl­edge about sci­ence and re­search. In this way they can: (a) as­sist in re­search com­mu­ni­ca­tions, thereby en­hanc­ing lit­er­acy and salience, and in­form­ing pol­icy de­ci­sions and so­ci­etal ac­tions; and (b) am­plify public value cre­ation and pro­mote even broader im­pacts, much like a rip­ple ef­fect. 28

Bridg­ing and bond­ing net­works are fun­da­men­tal el­e­ments of so­cial cap­i­tal, and they are es­sen­tial for man­ag­ing im­pacts. Some net­works link peo­ple who are sim­i­lar in cru­cial re­spects and tend to be in­ward look­ing, hence the term bond­ing so­cial cap­i­tal; while oth­ers en­com­pass dif­fer­ent types of peo­ple and tend to be out­ward look­ing, hence the term bridg­ing cap­i­tal. 29

Net­works are a crit­i­cal com­po­nent for build­ing so­cial cap­i­tal, since “dense net­works of so­cial in­ter­ac­tion ap­pear to fos­ter sturdy norms of gen­er­alised rec­i­proc­ity”. 30

So­cial cap­i­tal, in­clu­sive of so­cial or­gan­i­sa­tions' rec­i­proc­ity, norms and trust, fa­cil­i­tates ac­tion and co­op­er­a­tion be­tween stake­hold­ers for mu­tual

‘Stocks’ of so­cial cap­i­tal re­flect the level of so­cial in­ter­ac­tion, net­works and re­la­tions, trust and rec­i­proc­ity that ex­ist within a re­search com­mu­nity.

ben­e­fit 31 . Thus, in a re­search con­text,

‘stocks' of so­cial cap­i­tal re­flect the level of so­cial in­ter­ac­tion, net­works and re­la­tions, trust and rec­i­proc­ity that ex­ist within a re­search com­mu­nity 32 .

With in­creased stocks of so­cial cap­i­tal, typ­i­cally re­search value chains will have re­cip­ro­cal in­ter­ac­tions and in­creased trust that are di­rected to­wards mu­tual ben­e­fit 33,34 and as­sist in man­ag­ing im­pacts across the re­search value chain.

The work of Dowd et al. il­lus­trates the im­por­tance of so­cial in­te­gra­tion through­out the re­search value chain, high­light­ing the role of net­work anal­y­sis as a means of iden­ti­fy­ing those so­cial ties that ex­ist within a dy­namic net­work. It is these dy­namic net­works and re­la­tion­ships that aid the adop­tion and trans­fer of sci­ence im­pacts across the whole re­search value chain.

There­fore, max­i­mum value is de­rived when all stake­hold­ers in this sys­tem en­gage, and re­main en­gaged, through­out the life of the pro­ject. Herein lies the role of the bound­ary or­gan­i­sa­tion or knowl­edge bro­ker.

The the­ory of bound­ary or­gan­i­sa­tions draws upon the so­cial con­struc­tivist con­vic­tion that the bound­aries be­tween sci­ence and non-sci­ence are con­tin­gent, and so­cially con­structed.

Typ­i­cally, bound­ary or­gan­i­sa­tions, teams or in­di­vid­u­als link aca­demics with oth­ers in the re­search value chain. These or­gan­i­sa­tions and/or in­di­vid­u­als play a very im­por­tant role en­sur­ing in­for­ma­tion and knowl­edge trans­fer by man­ag­ing in­ter­ac­tions be­tween sci­ence and pol­i­tics, eco­nom­ics and so­ci­ety 35. Bound­ary span­ners are well placed to iden­tify and as­sist with re­search eval­u­a­tion and the man­age­ment of im­pact.

The Min­nipa Agri­cul­tural Cen­tre and Ru­ral So­lu­tions South Aus­tralia is one ex­am­ple where staff (in­clud­ing sci­en­tists) live lo­cally and en­gage with com­mu­nity in­ter­est groups in civic sci­ence pro­jects. These or­gan­i­sa­tions op­er­ate as bro­kers be­tween sci­ence, pol­icy, ad­min­is­tra­tion and end users – farm­ers – and em­ploy in­di­vid­u­als, of­ten agron­o­mists who can en­gage mean­ing­fully with end users.

Con­clu­sion

In this pa­per we have raised is­sues that are de­signed to stim­u­late a dis­cus­sion about STEM re­search and man­ag­ing re­search im­pacts. We ar­gue that the cur­rent prac­tices of re­search as­sess­ment and eval­u­a­tion are not broad enough to pro­vide value to all stake­hold­ers through­out the re­search value chain.

Un­like cur­rent im­pact as­sess­ment in which re­search ‘im­pacts' are con­sid­ered in iso­la­tion of their broader po­ten­tial or in­tended ben­e­fits, we ar­gue for a shift to im­pact man­age­ment, which is a strate­gic ap­proach to iden­ti­fy­ing im­pacts through­out the life of a re­search pro­ject. More­over, if we are to se­ri­ously ad­dress the chal­lenges in­her­ent in im­pact as­sess­ment of STEM re­search, we need first to be cre­ative in the way we en­gage with the re­search value chain.

Sec­ond, we need to con­cep­tu­alise and de­velop prac­ti­cal ways to mea­sure broad im­pacts across the re­search value chain. Fi­nally, by recog­nis­ing the valu­able role bound­ary or­gan­i­sa­tions, teams and in­di­vid­u­als play in the man­age­ment of im­pacts, we im­press upon the reader to con­sider the ben­e­fits for work­ing col­lab­o­ra­tively and strate­gi­cally when man­ag­ing broad re­search im­pacts.

IM­AGE: © Pa­trick Perkins-un­splash

IM­AGE: © De­fence Lo­gis­tics Agency

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.