CIHR is proud to announce the launch of its renewed Knowledge Mobilization (KM) Strategy & Action Plan.

It includes an updated KM concept and four streams of impact-focused work. To bring the Strategy to life, CIHR is making significant new and ongoing investments, including:

• $20M recurring for KM programs that respond to community needs
• A new knowledge synthesis and evidence integration platform funding opportunity (more to come)

CIHR will also be hosting an “Ask Me Anything” session later this Spring to answer questions on this renewed approach.

Read the plan and see what’s coming next.

The post CIHR Launches Renewed KM Strategy and Action Plan + Investments appeared first on Research Impact Canada.

Abstract

This study aims to address the gap in understanding the impact arising from education research, researcher collaborations with stakeholders, and knowledge mobilization activities in Singapore. Eight cases of local research projects are used to understand the phenomenon of research impact in different context-specific settings. The findings reveal differing perceptions of impact among research users and researchers, and cohesion on the factors that contribute to research impact. Drawing from the findings, the authors propose three emerging principles that can enhance research impact efforts: a) frontloading the intended research impact, b) building mutualistic relationships, and c) co-constructing research. The findings and emerging questions from the study contribute to the growing body of scholarship to help researchers and stakeholders strengthen the research-practice-policy nexus.

Heads up, I know Lorraine Ow (author Ow, R. F. L). I am a bit of a mentor for her and I have made a few presentations to the National Institute of Education (NIE). I didn’t know about this article from 2023 and was delighted she and her co-authors have written up their learnings. I think there is so much potential for knowledge mobilization to drive impact on education practice and policy in Singapore. NIE is the only faculty of education in Singapore, and they have long-standing relationships with the Ministry of Education. And there is a single Academy of Singapore Teachers (AST) that leads the professional development of MOE staff and teachers. Singapore has dedicated education research, policy and practice. It should be ripe for knowledge mobilization.

The authors used a case study method to address two questions:

• RQ 1. How do research users and researchers perceive impact from education research conducted in Singapore?
• RQ 2. What factors (e.g., approaches, strategies, relationships) contribute to impact?

The results align with work in other jurisdictions, but this work takes a Singapore lens to develop conclusions that are specific to Singapore. 

Some things that caught my eye:

• “Most researchers expressed the instrumental impact of their research on policy and on practitioners and practice.” Of course, they did, even if this isn’t the way research usually works into decision-making. Early work by Carol Weiss showed that most impact was mediated through conceptual, not instrumental, pathways. That being said, the fairly well-bounded Singapore context and the long-standing relationship between NIE researchers and MOE staff might make an instrumental pathway more prevalent.
• The authors spend some time addressing attribution. We usually consider contribution more than attribution. Rather than wondering how much of a change can be attributed to research, we ask, “How did the research contribute to the change.”

The authors note the following enablers: Relevance and timeliness to system; relationship building; research collaborators; building on the network and research design engagement; and, research communication engagement (continuous communication among participants). These come together as “three emerging principles that can enhance research impact efforts: a) frontloading the intended research impact, b) building mutualistic relationships, and c) co-constructing research.”

And thanks for the shoutout to Research Impact Canada and the co produced pathway to impact. It’s great to see our work used.

Questions for brokers:

1. Does anything stand out for you about knowledge mobilization and research impact that is unique to Singapore or does the Singapore experience mirror other jurisdictions?
2. NIE, MOE and AST: Is this system ready to rock on knowledge mobilization? What spark do they need to initiate this transition?
3. Time was cited as a barrier. How do you create time for your knowledge mobilization efforts?

Research Impact Canada is producing this journal club series to make evidence on KMb more accessible to knowledge brokers and to create online discussion about research on knowledge mobilization. It is designed for knowledge brokers and other people interested in knowledge mobilization. Read this open access article. Then come back to this post and join the journal club by posting your comments on our LinkedIn.

The post What Makes Education Research Impactful – Case Studies of Research Projects in Singapore appeared first on Research Impact Canada.

By Lupin Battersby

You know when you hear a new word or song or re-hear it after many years and think “wow, this has existed for so long and I have never heard of it until now”. And then you hear it again multiple times over the next days or weeks. There is probably a word for that–but that is not my point. Something similar happened to me recently around science and knowledge mobilization. 

Knowledge mobilization & “basic science”

Recently, frequent questions and conversations have come up around the relevance of knowledge mobilization to “basic science”. Particularly as it relates to knowledge mobilization that actively engages community throughout the research life cycle, and how this engagement could risk intellectual property. Reflecting on this, I want to share some thoughts. These are not new, not exclusively mine, not exhaustive, and likely open to disagreement.

If you have taken a workshop with me on knowledge mobilization you know I like to use the five knowledge mobilization planning questions: who, what, why, how, so what? These five questions can be used for all different types of research, science, or research creation.   

You also know that I emphasize the importance of answering the “who, what, why” first, and using those answers to inform the answer to “how”. In other words, tailor your knowledge mobilization activities and approaches based on your message, audience, and goals. The point of knowledge mobilization is to increase relevance, usefulness, and impact of scholarship. To achieve this, different projects need different approaches and need to engage different communities. 

For example, the “basic” scientist may have a knowledge mobilization goal to inform future research in an area that is slightly outside of their field because of the potential for that to advance their discovery into something applied. So, their audience is applied scientists in that field. They could engage that community in the research journey, publish in a more targeted journal, attend a conference in that field, and create outputs that are more accessible to researchers outside their discipline. That is not the only pathway, but it is one. 

There are many ways to engage community in the research life cycle. There are also many ways community is defined. Define community for your project, and then pick the engagement that makes sense for your who, what, and why.

Intellectual property (IP) 

Intellectual property (IP) refers to the ownership and usage rights of inventions and creative works (e.g. art, writing). IP is protected in law through various means such as patents, copyright, trademarks, trade secrets, industrial designs, geographical indications, and database rights. Non-disclosure agreements (NDA) are about keeping information private, and can be a tool for protecting IP. 

IP does not only impact or apply to “basic” science. In fact, this blog post is now my IP and is covered by automatic copyright law. 

Even if you are under an NDA or planning on filing a patent, you can still benefit from a knowledge mobilization plan. The patent is part of the plan; the NDA is a limiter to the scope of the plan. There still might be key messages that you can be sharing with your audience to move toward your longer-term goals that do not disrupt your patent or breach the NDA. And actually, maybe the NDA can help too. If community engagement is the best strategy for achieving your knowledge mobilization goals, perhaps you can have community partners that sign an NDA. 

Disclaimer – I am not an expert in IP. There are lots of folks that are experts. Talk to the copyright librarian, the technology licensing officers, lawyers, etc. Get them to review your knowledge mobilization plan. 

At the end of the day, all scholars can benefit from having a knowledge mobilization plan. And I can help you with that. 

The post Why Every Scientist Needs a Knowledge Mobilization Plan appeared first on Research Impact Canada.

I just read this excellent piece from the LSE Impact Blog. It captures something I often see when researchers are asked to discuss impact: impact claims fail when it stays abstract.

We often treat impact narratives as exercises in scale, innovation, or technical sophistication. We explain the architecture, the methodology, the breakthrough. And of course, that rigour matters. But it isn’t what makes people care.

People care about trust. About safety. About cost of living. About their health. About whether the lights stay on. About whether the systems they rely on are resilient or fragile.

Research may focus on complex infrastructures, emerging technologies, health systems, etc., but an impact narrative isn’t really about the technical components themselves. It’s about what changes for households, workers, patients, and communities because of them.

The strongest research stories don’t open with definitions or disciplinary detail. They begin with a human stake. What’s at risk? Who feels the consequences? What improves or fails in everyday life?

Complexity can follow. But connection has to come first!

If we want research to travel beyond academic audiences, we have to answer one question clearly and early: Why does this matter to someone’s life?

Link to the LSE Impact Blog article: Good impact narratives must connect to our everyday lives – LSE Impact

The post Good impact narratives must connect to our everyday lives appeared first on Research Impact Canada.

Abstract

Introduction: Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a knowledge translation framework that focuses collaboration between researchers and knowledge users (KUs) to generate research findings. KUs can be policymakers, clinicians, or those with lived experience who partner with researchers. While advocated as an approach that democratizes research and reduces power imbalance between researchers and KUs, it is not known if the implementation of IKT by health researchers actively addresses power imbalances. The aim of this study was to review research using an integrated knowledge translation approach to explore how power is addressed within these research studies. By looking broadly at how the studies addressed / described / discussed / dismantled power we explored examples of when this was done well and not so well, exposing the assumptions sometimes made by researchers.

Methods: We drew from systematic review procedures combined with a modified critical discourse analysis (CDA) lens. We searched Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Social Science Database, SocIndex and Google Scholar for English language studies that focused on IKT and power. Data were extracted on study characteristics and a modified CDA which included questions in relation to power (e.g., description of power, phrases used to describe power, evidence of power dynamics, strategies for addressing power imbalances) and end user engagement (e.g., Did they ask KUs how they wanted to be involved? Did they engage in reflection with KUs? Did they discuss dissemination strategies with KUs).

Results: Eleven studies were eligible after screening 381 titles and reviewing 40 full-text studies. The use of IKT to address power varied significantly, revealing both positive examples as well as some missed opportunities to address power imbalances from study inception to dissemination.

Conclusion: Revisiting the use of IKT to examine how power is defined, shared, and managed in relationships with KUs could provide valuable insights. Using a CDA framework to explore these dynamics would indeed address the nuances of power in research contexts. Future research should focus on developing strategies to effectively implement IKT to address power imbalances, leading to research that has a better chance of being useful, usable and used in practice.

This article is about power. Power between partners in integrated knowledge translation (iKT) which is where academics and non-academics (policy makers, community groups, people with lived expertise such as patients) collaborate on research. Who holds the power? How might we balance power? What happens if we do? What happens if we don’t?

First off, they offer a Plain English Summary. That’s great. It helps make the article accessible to a non-specialist audience. But how non-specialist? I put their Plain English Summary into Co-Pilot and it turned out to be between a grade 10-12 level English. That’s good. I then asked Co-Pilot to write it in grade 8 English. Try it for yourselves.

This was a lit review. Of 381 study titles and 40 full text reading they found only 11 articles that fit the inclusion criteria. One conclusion is there isn’t much out there on this important topic. Conclusion #1: more empirical studies are needed but we will make the most of these 11 articles.

Way back in 2007 Sandra Nutley mentioned power in her seminal book, Using Evidence. Why is power important? The article states, Power can be wielded for benevolent purposes or for dominance. When one population dominates another, especially if the dominant group holds a higher social status or is seen as the knowledge authority, significant societal issues can arise. Some examples of academics (maybe unknowingly) holding power include being the grant recipient and not sharing funding, benefitting from formal research training and not building community capacity, having time for research built into work schedules, holding meetings on campus not in community, publishing in peer reviewed literature behind a paywall. There are lots of ways academics wield power. Not in a megalomaniac way, possibly unconscious, but power nonetheless.

iKT without sharing power risks research that is not or never will be ready for use, data/samples/outputs extracted from knowledge users, recapitulation of trauma on knowledge users, reputational damage. One example in the article cites patient engagement in healthcare research, while often framed as empowering, can be constrained by institutional norms that prioritize biomedical expertise over experiential knowledge.

Kudos to the authors who write about their own positionalities. I am seeing this occasionally in peer reviewed literature where authors cite their institutional affiliations but not what else they bring to the table. One observation: they mention how they practice iKT and bring their own lived expertise to their research but all four are housed at academic institutions. Just sayin’…

One approach cited engagement of advisory bodies, Engagement with KUs regarding the dissemination strategies was variable; again, some studies use their advisory group or committees to assist with this task. Advisory bodies. At best they can give advice. There is no power in advice. Give them power to make decisions not just provide advice.

One approach to sharing power in iKT was cited as an institutional need. Until researchers are supported by a system that provided opportunity, time, resources and capacity to address power (through IKT and other mechanisms) from the beginning of the research process, there will still

be gaps in capacity to do this effectively. Researchers work in a system that is used to holding onto power. See an 11 year old post about trying to change a 600 year old academic model.

Finally, the authors suggest six approaches to address power imbalances between academic and non-academic research partners. None of them are building capacity for non-academics to become authentic, equal partners in research even though capacity building was mentioned in the article. 

Questions for brokers:

1. Being the grant recipient and not sharing funding, benefitting from formal research training and not building community capacity, having time for research built into work schedules, holding meetings on campus not in community, publishing in peer reviewed literature behind a paywall. What other ways might academics hold onto power?
2. What might a non-academic voice have brought to this paper if invited to collaborate and power was shared in decisions about the questions asked, methods used and forms of forms of dissemination?
3. What is your institution doing to support researchers’ iKT? If you are working at a Research Impact Canada (RIC) member institution how is RIC helping?

Research Impact Canada is producing this journal club series to make evidence on KMb more accessible to knowledge brokers and to create online discussion about research on knowledge mobilization. It is designed for knowledge brokers and other people interested in knowledge mobilization. Read this open access article. Then come back to this post and join the journal club by posting your comments on our LinkedIn.

The post Addressing power imbalance in research: Exploring power in integrated knowledge translation health research appeared first on Research Impact Canada.

Cross-posted from SFU KM Hub’s article

2025: A Year in Review – By Lupin Battersby

The KM Hub team. Left to right: Lupin Battersby, Sophie Ashton, Cassidy Acheson, Tiffany Nam, Emily Shantz.

2025 has been a bit of a wild ride for me–personally and professionally. Like many, I’ve navigated family challenges and global uncertainties. Professionally, it’s been a year of change. SFU closed the Community Engagement offices, and UBC closed their Knowledge Exchange (Kx) unit.The Kx unit team closely collaborated with us on training programs and contributed substantially to the KM community.

Despite these changes, I am confident that SFU remains committed to supporting KM resources–And the SFU KM Hub has some great good news stories. I focus on these good stories, because I’m immensely proud of the team of mobilizers that I have the privilege to work alongside every day. I will not share all the team’s wins and kudos of the year–just know there are many more.

Sophie Ashton and I work closely together on many aspects of the KM Hub. I’m grateful for her creativity, organization, and passion for this work. Sophie recently launched the KM Hub LinkedIn page to help drive traffic to our website, which she significantly improved this year. Sophie is committed to continuous improvement–for our programs, for our website, for our stories–and the KM community reaps the benefits! The KM community quickly and happily followed our LinkedIn page, just in time to see the excellent stories that Sophie polished and posted to the blog.

Cassidy Acheson provides knowledge mobilization support to the three SFU Canada Excellence Research Chairs, including Nick Reo’s Coastal Relationalities and Regeneration (CORR) initiative. She supported the learning constellation in helping Nuchatlaht First Nation plan a family and culture camp this July. They gathered on their territory to celebrate the reclamation of part of their land and to (re)learn Nuchatlaht land and food ways. For many members, it was an act of returning home and returning to family. A few months later, when Nuchatlaht returned to court to fight for the rest of their land, they shared songs and dances they had been inspired to re-learn through relationships formed in CORR.

From left to right: Ugen Lhazin, Lupin Battersby, Gen Creighton, Alia Januwalla, Sophie Ashton. ISTI organizers at the 2025 intensive. Harbour Centre, SFU.

Members of the learning constellation, including Cassidy Acheson (5th from the left) at Nuchatlaht Summer Camp (2025).

Tiffany Nam is the knowledge mobilization specialist with the Agriculture Genomics Action Centre (AG-ACt), a national Genome Canada funded KM Hub that I have the pleasure of co-leading. This year Tiffany supported AG-ACt in co-hosting their first two-day national summit in Vancouver. After six months of planning, she helped bring together 180+ interest-holders from academia, research, industry, and community to spark ideas and action around climate-smart agri-food. She beautifully facilitated the planning committee, provided regional coordination, and attended to all the details–big and small.

The AG-ACt team at the Cultivating Resilience Summit including Lupin Battersby (middle left) and Tiffany Nam (middle right). October, 2025. Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue, SFU.

Emily Shantz joined the KM Hub team this spring, launching SFU Knowledge Link, a new initiative that facilitates evidence-based decision-making by providing tailored information synthesis services. Emily has supported policy makers in accessing the most current and high-quality research evidence related to a number of key issues, including novel technologies to mitigate the spread of avian influenza among local poultry farms. This knowledge synthesis has already led to the province initiating an evidence-informed pilot project to test these technologies in the BC context.

As we head into 2026, I’m excited to keep building on this momentum and continue connecting people to research to action to impact. Thank you to everyone who has been part of this journey!

Note from the Editor:

A celebration of our team would be incomplete without recognizing Lupin, our brilliant leader, who while supporting our individual successes, is always planning and making connections to drive our collective impact. Lupin leads with care, intention, and extensive expertise in and passion for knowledge mobilization. Her mentorship and investment in my success have allowed me to grow, learn, and make decisions based on passion and confidence in my work.

The KM Hub launched as a one-person strategic initiative in 2020 (supported by Dr. Valorie Crooks and Alison Moore). Lupin developed the KM Hub with careful planning and dedication. This year, the KM Hub became an official department with a team of five. Each member of our team works on distinct projects, all uniquely contributing to many of SFU’s priorities–and this is no accident. Lupin is always thinking ahead and dreaming big for the knowledge mobilization possibilities at SFU. I can’t wait to see what 2026 has in store!

To any and all that supported the KM Hub this year–thank you! The knowledge mobilization community at SFU is strong and growing. We feel lucky to be a part of it. See you next year!

– Sophie

In December of 2025, the KM Hub, TLO, and i2I got a new sign for our office! Excitement for the new sign prompted the KM Hub team to make paper snowflakes as an icebreaker at our team meeting. We decorated our new sign and rejoiced in our festive spirit!

The post SFU KM Hub’s 2025 Year in Review appeared first on Research Impact Canada.

Research Impact Canada (RIC) is pleased to open the call for applications for the 2026 Engaged Scholarship Award for Graduate Students – our annual recognition of exceptional community-engaged research that drives meaningful impact.

This year (and moving forward), non-university member organizations in the RIC Network are invited to submit applications!* We’re excited to expand this opportunity and highlight the diverse contributions our members bring to collaborative research and knowledge mobilization.

The deadline to submit applications is March 1, 2026 at 11:59 PM ET.

If you’re advancing engaged scholarship that makes a difference, we encourage you to apply!

* Graduate students applying from non-university institutions must still be enrolled in a graduate program at one of RIC’s member universities.

The post Applications Now Open: RIC 2026 Engaged Scholarship Award appeared first on Research Impact Canada.

Abstract

Research impact has emerged as a cornerstone of academic performance assessment in the UK, epitomised by the Research Excellence Framework (REF). Through an analysis of the Business and Management impact case submissions to the REF, this paper explores the intricate interplay between institutional rankings, Athena Swan awards, and social inequalities in shaping research impact. Leveraging Bourdieu’s theoretical universe, including concepts of field, habitus, and various forms of capital, the study reveals how gendered, racial, and class-based hierarchies underpin and perpetuate disparities in the production and recognition of impact. The findings underscore the critical role of structural interventions, such as Athena Swan initiatives, in moderating these inequalities while highlighting their limitations in bridging the gap between planning and execution. By linking these findings to broader science and innovation policy debates, we propose a multi level framework for fostering inclusive and equitable research impact. Our recommendations provide actionable insights for policymakers and higher education institutions seeking to democratize research impact assessment and improve equity in academic careers.

• Caveat off the top: this is a non-peer reviewed pre-print. It doesn’t mean this is better or worse than peer reviewed articles. It means you need to be a critical consumer of the material.

This is an interesting article because it interrogates the relationship between equity and impact. It isn’t knowledge mobilization per se but knowledge mobilization enables research impact so a credible link can be made. The article looked at impact case study author identities of gender and race and the submission of impact case studies in the UK 2021 Research Impact Framework.

• Next caveat: the authors looked at academic profiles of impact case study authors and determined which were men/women and which were white/non-white. The authors admit this is imprecise. But I agree with the authors that this is an ok basis on which to proceed. It isn’t perfect but it starts to address the question.

What is the question? Through quantitative analysis of impact case studies and demographic data, we explore whether and how Athena Swan Award rankings moderate the relationship between institutional prestige and research impact outcomes.

Now non-UK audiences are asking not only what is REF but what is Athena Swan? It is a charter recognizing academic institutions that are making progress towards gender equity in research. It rewards a bronze ranking to institutions beginning to plan and gold to institutions who can demonstrate planning was implemented and made a difference. It is only gender and – I think – it is only men/women, nothing about trans researchers.

The study asks if institutions awarded Athena Swan recognition submit more impact case studies and have greater diversity in impact case study authors.

• Final Caveat (which is where peer review would help):  the number of impact case studies submitted is a function of a REF formula so asking about Athena Swan recognition and number of case studies submitted doesn’t feel like you make a conclusion since institutions submit what they are told to submit by REF rules.

But for the next two questions about gender and race of the case study authors there is greater diversity of both in institutions that have been awarded Athena Swan Gold but not Bronze or Silver.  The assumption here is that planning for diversity doesn’t result in diversity but actually implementing those plans does.

With the caveats above the data suggest that institutions who receive Athena Gold recognition have greater diversity of case study authors. The authors of the article conclude that efforts to increase equity, diversity and inclusion can “democratize research impact assessment and improve equity in academic careers.”

Questions for brokers:

1. The references the authors use cite gender inequity in impact assessment. Why is there no literature cited on racial inequity?
2. There are always more women than men in the knowledge mobilization webinars, courses, meetings I attend but we are mostly professional (ie support) staff, not academic researchers. Is this another example of gender bias and exclusion in academic careers?
3. What might an EDI plan for knowledge mobilization look like and how might it help create more inclusive knowledge mobilization and thus more inclusive research impact?

Research Impact Canada is producing this journal club series to make evidence on KMb more accessible to knowledge brokers and to create online discussion about research on knowledge mobilization. It is designed for knowledge brokers and other people interested in knowledge mobilization. Read this open access article. Then come back to this post and join the journal club by posting your comments on our LinkedIn.

The post Noninclusive Impact: Rethinking Research Impact Through an Equity Lens and Equality Interventions appeared first on Research Impact Canada.

This award recognizes individuals who have made significant contributions to advancing knowledge mobilization (KMb) as a profession and is named in honor of Peter Levesque, a pioneer in the field. Among many achievements in his career, Peter founded the Institute for Knowledge Mobilization and launched The Canadian Knowledge Mobilization Forum. His work in the field has set the stage for much of the subsequent knowledge mobilization work across Canada. 

While there are awards for KMb scholarship and graduate student research, there are no awards recognizing contributions of professional staff to diverse aspects of knowledge mobilization. We’re excited to fill this gap and celebrate those who have dedicated their careers to advancing the field. 

Overview of the Award 
Deadline: March 1, 2026 at 11:59 pm Eastern Time 
Prize: This is an award of recognition. There is no cash value associated with the award. 
Eligibility: Eligibility for this award is limited to staff and faculty at a Research Impact Canada Member Institution. View a list of members here.

How to Apply: To apply, please submit the following through the nomination system. 

• A completed nomination form 
• A nomination letter (2 pages maximum)
• A CV or Professional Resume (3 pages maximum)
  • Traditional CVs, Narrative-Based CVs, and Professional Resumes are welcome 
• 2 letters of support (2 pages maximum per letter)

Nominees may submit their application in the official language of their choice – English or French. 

Additional Details

The goal of this award is to recognize the achievements of an individual or a team that has helped establish and/or support professional knowledge mobilizers. This award specifically recognizes those whose efforts have built the capacity of others to do knowledge mobilization work, whether through training, mentorship, program development, tool creation, and other methods. 

We define ‘professional knowledge mobilizers’ as those who have a job dedicated to one or more aspects of knowledge mobilization, including but not limited to: engaging with interested/affected groups, planning, collaborating, disseminating and/or evaluating knowledge mobilization activities. 

We welcome nominations that reflect the diversity of knowledge mobilization and research impact practices among RIC members institutions. 

Selection Criteria 
Each application will be assessed based on the following criteria.

For questions or further information, contact Sandy Chan ([email protected]). 

The post Nominations Open: Peter Levesque Award for Knowledge Mobilization Leadership 2026 appeared first on Research Impact Canada.

If we don’t give Arts & Humanities researchers the tools to write successful policy-oriented research funding bids, they will only write bad ones. If they only write bad ones, reviewers won’t be exposed to what a high-quality bid looks like and won’t be able to provide constructive criticism. With no tools and no criticism, Arts & Humanities researchers won’t be able to develop the necessary skills and will stick to writing high-quality research-focused funding bids. If senior researchers only write research-focused bids, junior researchers won’t have any models or examples to learn from. Without any discipline-wide experience, Arts & Humanities researchers won’t acquire the tools needed to write successful policy-oriented research funding bids. Now start from the top.

This is the chicken and egg situation many A&H researchers are faced with when at the start of their policy engagement journey, and one of the many barriers preventing A&H research and knowledge to inform decision-making. While we acknowledge that there isn’t one secret magic formula for writing policy impact into bids, we want to at least try and crack open the egg with some insight that other A&H researchers might be able to use for their next funding bid.

Pathway to Impact

Those of us who have been around the block at least once will remember that UKRI Research Councils used to have a section in all of their funding applications called “Pathway to Impact” – a neatly distinct section where applicants could explain how they were planning on achieving policy impact. This was scrapped a few years back, leaving many researchers stumped: if there is not Pathway section, where am I supposed to talk about impact? The answer is both reassuring and daunting: anywhere and everywhere. Indeed, reviewers now expect your pathway to impact to be seamlessly woven into the entirety of the bid. This brings us our first red flag: if you’re only talking about policy stakeholders in one paragraph, thrown in at the end of your dissemination plan alongside your proposed monograph, that sends the signal you’ve not actually given much thought about impact at all.

If this was your last research funding application, don’t worry, fixing this is not as complicated as it seems. 

Research Questions

Let’s start with the one element you can’t write a bid without: research questions. There is a widespread assumption in the academic community that to be successful in a funding bid one must have a fully formed, unchangeable set of research questions, , and that indeed any uncertainty or vagueness around the research question is a sure-fire signal of failure. But there’s a difference between your research questions being vague and being a work in progress.

Many researchers, including A&H researchers, see engagement with stakeholders as an ‘add on’ at the end of a research project, but the number one most effective thing you can do in policy engagement actually happens at the start of a project: co-designing your research questions with a policy partner. Sure, you might have a good idea of the project and key questions you’re interested in, but if your goal is to influence policy in any way, nothing is going to be more valuable than sitting down with the policymaker you are trying to influence, and talking through what their policy questions are, and what the barriers are to achieving your impact goal. Then you’re no longer creating knowledge for their consumption (something they might or might not be interested in), but you are co-creating knowledge with them, knowledge that directly answers their questions and is by its own nature usable, accessible and relevant.

Going back to the original point, you don’t need to have your research questions set in stone before you start, as long as you are clear in your application on how you will achieve that, and build in enough time and resources at the start to do so.

Theory of Change

Say your policy partners have agreed to sit down with you and shape those research questions at the start of the project – how do you actually keep working with them and ensure they stay engaged? This is where a Theory of Change (ToC) comes in handy. While we no longer have a Pathway to Impact section, a ToC is easiest and most practical way of ‘visualising’ your Pathway. There are many versions of the ToC model out there, as there are many valid alternatives (see benefit maps or logic models), but they all boil down to the same principles: plan, measure and evaluate.

Think of your ToC as your action plan: how are you going to approach your stakeholders, how you will work with them, what they’ll do different as a result, and how this helps you achieve your final goal. You research project might actually be one of the many steps of a larger ToC!

Then break it down to practical steps: could you have an Advisory Board for your project? Give private briefings as soon as you have early findings? Run workshops to co-create recommendations before they’re made public? Here, there is no one size fits all, but think creatively about ways to ensure you are co-creating knowledge with your policy partners and about whether the activities and engagements you are putting into your plan are the right types of thing to do with the users of your research. Also, a nice Gantt chart never hurt anyone.

Letters of Support

Now it’s time to capture it all. When it comes to external engagement in general, but specifically policy engagement, the most convincing element of a funding application is actually not in the application itself – it’s the Letters of Support. Rest assured that reviewers do read them, and are actually quite critical of their quality, so make sure that you use them to their maximum potential.

While it’s tempting to use a ready-made letter for all your partners, that’s easy to spot and makes your application look sloppy. Instead, you can use a template but make sure you customize the bulk of the text to reflect your partner’s involvement. For example, make sure you leave space for them to articulate what they will get from the project, include a detailed breakdown of their involvement (better yet if you can put a figure against any in-kind contributions!), and most importantly build in the time and resources for evaluation, so that your partners commit to being involved all the way through to that point in the project. With your Theory of Change in mind, think through how you want to capture the impact of your work – is it through a pre-post questionnaire, is it through a qualitative feedback interview? Regardless, make sure your partners are aware of the expectation, and that they sign it off in the Letter of Support.

So here it is – not a magic formula, but a few ideas to get you started on your next research funding bid. If you need further support, make sure you reach out to the Impact team at your institution who will be able to provide guidance. And if you have any other tips to add to our list, get in touch to share them with the UPEN Subcommittee on Arts & Humanities.

Do you have an example case study where arts & humanities research influenced policy? Get in touch with Arlene Holmes Henderson at [email protected].

The post “Cracking open the egg: tips and tricks for Arts & Humanities on embedding policy impact into research bids” appeared first on Research Impact Canada.