What is the societal impact of university research? A policy-oriented review to map approaches, identify monitoring methods and success factors

The discussion on the 'societal impact of university research' has emerged within the recent decade with different utilisation from the British REF impact stories to the EU Framework Programmes' criteria. The fundamental idea is that (university) research should contribute to addressing societal challenges, such as climate change, and not just pursue 'scientific excellence'. Several approaches have been developed, from case studies of the 'productive interactions' that co-create knowledge with societal stakeholders to the so-called 'altmetrics' tracking online dissemination of research outputs. Nonetheless, these experiences do not always point in the same direction, and the notion of 'societal impact' seems still unclearly defined. Given the growing policy pressure on universities to address societal challenges, this paper reviews the scientific literature on the so-called 'societal impact' of university research. By querying three scientific archives (Web of Science, Scopus and ScienceDirect), 135 relevant scientific publications are selected and discussed, looking for conceptualisations, monitoring methods and success factors. The review maps a value-laden discussion arguing for longer-term, multi-dimensional perspectives on university research impacts beyond bibliometric indicators. Findings highlight a progressive shift from 'attribution', i.e., looking for causal relationships between research and societal changes, to 'contribution', acknowledging researchers' efforts to engage with societal challenges.

Knowledge systems approaches for enhancing project impacts in complex settings: community fire management and peatland restoration in Indonesia

Knowledge systems approaches for enhancing the impact of research are well established and tend to focus on the ways in which researchers can adapt their engagement with stakeholders to achieve a better "fit" between research and action agendas. Yet, these approaches are often based on explicit or implicit assumptions of a skilled and willing research team, and stable and well-defined stakeholders, who have consistent and reasonably well-defined needs. This paper discusses how knowledge systems approaches were developed and deployed in the first phase of the Gambut Kita (Our Peatland) project on community fire management and peatland restoration in Indonesia (2017-2021). This was a complex project with a large multi-disciplinary team situated across dynamic institutions in Indonesia and Australia, and addressing a politically controversial topic. To capture the diverse experience of the researchers, and to focus on the needs of stakeholders, we developed a sequence of whole-of-project approaches comprising the following: (i) stakeholder mapping exercises at three nested scales combining stakeholder analysis, knowledge systems mapping and impact pathways analysis; (ii) a project coordinating committee of high-level Indonesian policy-makers and policy-influencers; (iii) a stakeholder engagement forum and (iv) online policy dialogues. We demonstrate its effects through the case of developing an Indonesian Peat Fire Danger Rating System (Peat FDRS), as a core project deliverable. Over 4 years, these structured stakeholder engagement processes gave rise to a Peat FDRS Stakeholder Engagement Network (a multi-institutional working group), which is making significant progress in navigating the complexity inherent in realising an accurate Indonesian Peat FDRS.

Methods for Postdisaster Impact Assessment: A Case Study of the Impacts of the Fundão Dam Failure on Terrestrial Species Threatened with Extinction

The Fundão tailings dam held back approximately 50 million cubic meters of tailings from an Fe ore mine in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. The dam failed on 5 November 2015, releasing tailings into the Rio Doce watershed and causing an environmental disaster in a biodiversity hotspot. To guide conservation action following the event, Brazilian authorities demanded an impact assessment focused on terrestrial species threatened by extinction. Postdisaster impact assessment is substantially more challenging than predevelopment impact assessment. Predisaster baseline data were sparse, and much was unknown about how the Fundão dam failure impacted terrestrial species threatened with extinction. Baseline reconstruction and impact pathway validation and characterization was critical. Ecosystem reconstruction revealed that 1580 ha of terrestrial ecosystems were destroyed, including approximately 480 ha of Atlantic rainforest. Collaboration with local experts identified 346 species of vertebrates, invertebrates, and vascular plants threatened with extinction that were impacted or potentially impacted. Species composition and impacts varied within 4 distinct segments of the Rio Doce watershed. Nine potential impact pathways were identified using data and literature review combined with information provided by regulators, experts, and media. Not all were valid. Validating and characterizing each pathway within each watershed segment involved data evaluation, an ecological risk screening, and field assessments. Impact pathway evaluation proved critical to dispelling misconception, accurately understanding postdisaster impacts, and directing conservation action; the importance of this step cannot be overemphasized. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2020;16:676-680. © 2020 SETAC.

Mechanisms and pathways to impact in public health research: a preliminary analysis of research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)

Background

The mechanisms and pathways to impacts from public health research in the UK have not been widely studied. Through the lens of one funder (NIHR), our aims are to map the diversity of public health research, in terms of funding mechanisms, disciplinary contributions, and public health impacts, identify examples of impacts, and pathways to impact that existing reporting mechanisms may not otherwise have captured, and provide illustrations of how public health researchers perceive the generation of non-academic impact from their work.

Methods

A total of 1386 projects were identified as ‘public health research’ by the NIHR and listed in the NIHR Public Health Overview database (2000–2016). From these, a subset of 857 projects were matched as potentially having begun reporting impacts via an external data-gathering platform (Researchfish). Data on the 857 projects were analyzed quantitatively, and nine projects were selected to investigate further through semi-structured interviews with principal investigators. Two workshops took place to validate emerging and final findings and facilitate analysis.

Results

In addition to the NIHR School for Public Health Research and the NIHR Public Health Research Programme, 89% of projects contained in the NIHR Public Health Overview portfolio as ‘public health research’ are funded via other NIHR research programmes, suggesting significant diversity in disciplines contributing to public health research and outcomes. The pathways to impact observed in our in-depth case studies include contributing to debates on what constitutes appropriate evidence for national policy change, acknowledging local ‘unintended’ impacts, building trusted relationships with stakeholders across health and non-health sectors and actors, collaborating with local authorities, and using non-academic dissemination channels.

Conclusions

Public health as a discipline contributes substantially to impact beyond academia. To support the diversity of these impacts, we need to recognise localized smaller-scale impacts, and the difference in types of evidence required for community and local authority-based impacts. This will also require building capacity and resources to enable impact to take place from public health research. Finally, support is required for engagement with local authorities and working with non-health sectors that contribute to health outcomes.

Towards appropriate mainstreaming of "Theory of Change" approaches into agricultural research for development: Challenges and opportunities

Food insecurity persists in many parts of Africa and Asia, despite ongoing agricultural research for development (AR4D) interventions. This is resulting in a growing demand for alternative approaches to designing and evaluating interventions in complex systems. Theory of Change (ToC) is an approach which may be useful because it enables stakeholders to present and test their theories and assumptions about why and how impact may occur, ideally within an environment conducive to iterative reflection and learning. However, ToC is yet to be appropriately mainstreamed into development by donors, researchers and practitioners. We carried out a literature review, triangulated by interviews with 26 experts in African and Asian food security, consisting of researchers, advisors to programs, and donors. Although 17 (65%) of the experts had adopted ToC, their responses and the literature revealed four challenges to mainstreaming: (i) different interpretations of ToC; (ii) incoherence in relationships among the constituent concepts of ToC; (iii) confused relationships between ToC and project "logframes"; and (iv) limitations in necessary skills and commitment for enacting ToC. A case study of the evolution of a ToC in a West African AR4D project over 4 years which exemplified these challenges is presented. Five recommendations arise to assist the mainstreaming of ToC: (i) select a type of ToC suited to the relative complexity of the problem and focal system of interest; (ii) state a theory or hypotheses to be tested as the intervention progresses; (iii) articulate the relationship between the ToC and parallel approaches (e.g. logframe); (iv) accept that a ToC is a process, and (v) allow time and resources for implementers and researchers to develop ToC thinking within projects. Finally, we suggest that communities of practice should be established among AR4D and donor organisations to test, evaluate and improve the contribution that ToCs can make to sustainable food security and agricultural development.

Towards a meaningful assessment of marine ecological impacts in life cycle assessment (LCA)

Human demands on marine resources and space are currently unprecedented and concerns are rising over observed declines in marine biodiversity. A quantitative understanding of the impact of industrial activities on the marine environment is thus essential. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a widely applied method for quantifying the environmental impact of products and processes. LCA was originally developed to assess the impacts of land-based industries on mainly terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. As such, impact indicators for major drivers of marine biodiversity loss are currently lacking. We review quantitative approaches for cause-effect assessment of seven major drivers of marine biodiversity loss: climate change, ocean acidification, eutrophication-induced hypoxia, seabed damage, overexploitation of biotic resources, invasive species and marine plastic debris. Our review shows that impact indicators can be developed for all identified drivers, albeit at different levels of coverage of cause-effect pathways and variable levels of uncertainty and spatial coverage. Modeling approaches to predict the spatial distribution and intensity of human-driven interventions in the marine environment are relatively well-established and can be employed to develop spatially-explicit LCA fate factors. Modeling approaches to quantify the effects of these interventions on marine biodiversity are less well-developed. We highlight specific research challenges to facilitate a coherent incorporation of marine biodiversity loss in LCA, thereby making LCA a more comprehensive and robust environmental impact assessment tool. Research challenges of particular importance include i) incorporation of the non-linear behavior of global circulation models (GCMs) within an LCA framework and ii) improving spatial differentiation, especially the representation of coastal regions in GCMs and ocean-carbon cycle models.