1 / 23

Pathways to Impact & Funders Jude Hill Research Development Manager, RED

Pathways to Impact & Funders Jude Hill Research Development Manager, RED. ESRC Strategic Plan, 2009-14.

holt
Download Presentation

Pathways to Impact & Funders Jude Hill Research Development Manager, RED

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pathways to Impact & FundersJude HillResearch Development Manager, RED

  2. ESRC Strategic Plan, 2009-14 ‘The ESRC expects that all the Academic research it funds will be high quality and of scholarly distinction, but we are also committed to increasing its non academic impact…… The concept of 'impact' in the social sciences applies to all sectors: public, private and third. It embraces economic and societal impactin the sense of direct and often quantifiable economic benefits; wider social impacts that will benefit society more generally such as effects on the environment, public health or quality of life; and impacts on government policy, the third sector and professional practice. ‘Strategic Plan’ can be downloaded from here. Includes impact case studies http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/strategicplan/

  3. Practicalities

  4. Pre-award Since Feb 2009 • 1. Two mandatory sections on JeS form: Academic beneficiaries – academic (4000 characters) UK or beyond; within or beyond your discipline… Impact Summary - broadly non academic (4000 characters) e.g. private, public, or third sector, the wider public… • 2. Case for support attachment, also mandatory: ‘Pathways to Impact’ (since 20 April 2010) • Was `Impact Plan` • 3. Can ask for resources if well justified • DETAILED GUIDANCE ON WEB

  5. What’s the Difference…. • between the summaries and the plan? • The summaries may well appear in the public domain • focus WHO will benefit (UK and beyond), HOW they will be impacted, e.g. methodological or theoretical advances or production of data etc, e.g. potential to benefit nation’s health, wealth, culture • also indicate WHAT will be done to ensure these people benefit, inc whether other researchers will collaborate on project • The ‘Pathways to Impact’ document expands on the information in the summaries • WHAT you are actually going to do? More of an emphasis on this than in summaries • networking events, workshops, publications, public engagement, training….

  6. What is the “Pathways to Impact” document? • 2 page (max) attachment. Addresses: • Who will benefit from this research? • How will they benefit from this research? • What will be done to ensure that they have the opportunity to benefit from this research? • Need to consider: • How will the proposed research project will be managed to engage users/beneficiaries & increase the likelihood of impacts? • Track record • Timescales (consider what is achievable and expected for research of this nature- be realistic) • Costs (for activities to be undertaken as part of the project)

  7. Academic vs Economic/Societal • Ideally “Pathways to Impact” is specific to users and beneficiaries of the research outside academic research community, but Since change from Impact Plan, the academic impact may be discussed where this forms part of the critical pathway towards economic and societal impact • Expectation that everyone will be able to write something, but • If you feel you can’t, then you need to explain your reasoning in both the Pathways to Impact and the Impact Summary • Your arguments will be reviewed with the rest of the proposal

  8. Communications & engagement • How have beneficiaries been engaged to date, & how will they be engaged moving forward? • How will the work build on existing or create new links? • Outline plans to work with intermediary organisations or networks. • What activities will be undertaken to ensure good engagement & communication?

  9. Collaboration • How will collaborations & partnerships within the proposed project or research be managed? • Roles & responsibilities of all parties in relation to impact.. • Nature of the relationships – e.g. established or newly formed. • Nature, value & significance of any contributions to the proposed project. • Details of any formal collaboration agreements or future plans for collaboration agreements.

  10. Capability • Who is likely to be undertaking the impact activities? • For example: • PI or Co-I(s). • PhD students & post-doctoral researchers. • Specialised staff employed to undertake communication & exploitation activities. • What previous & relevant experience do they have in achieving successful knowledge exchange & impact? • How will they acquire the skills?

  11. Resources • PROJECT-SPECIFIC • Ask for and justify what you need: • Investigator time allocated to impact activities for the project • Specific training e.g. for RAs • Employment of specialist staff • Marketing assessments • Workshops, seminars and networking events • Publicity/dissemination • Consider timescales of project

  12. Observations • No need to expand to fill two pages if not needed • Avoid simply cutting and pasting the summaries • please say what you will DO! • `Usual journals and conferences` • please think about what these are! • Impact through people • poorly addressed on the whole • `Not applicable` • Impact is very broad so please explain why!

  13. Implications for Peer Review (ESRC) • Reviewers’ form • Explicit questions about excellence and impact • Potential for high scientific and user impact; costs for user engagement, other activities for maximising impact • http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/Assessors%27%20guidance%20April%202009_tcm6-27292.pdf • Assessment process • Impact as secondary criterion, but of growing importance (from Summer 2010) Any feedback from PRC briefings?

  14. Internal restructuring • From this summer, new Peer Review College, Committees and Panels in effect. • Seven members of GSOE on new ESRC PRC • To embed user perspective throughout ESRC’s decision-making processes, at every level. Users from business, third and public sectors • List of User’s on new Peer Review College (pp24-28) http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/PR%20Full%20Member%20List_tcm6-36461.pdf

  15. Monitoring & Evaluation • Training and communication issues • We will update all as and when new developments emerge • Successful applications including ‘Impact’ sections are trickling in • Will continue to collect, and circulate where possible • Key messages/trends and improved advice • Collecting data on outputs, outcomes and impacts of projects (ESRC or otherwise) • Current activities within GSOE?

  16. Changes to post-award reporting • Since November 2009 • To better capture both academic and non-academic outputs and impacts

  17. ESRC new final reporting process 3 monthsafter end of award: Grant holder submits (revised) End of Award Report Some reference to impact ESRC makes final payment 12 monthsafter end of award: Grant holder submits Impact Report (summarising details of scientific, economic or societal impact resulting from the project) A revised grading scale will continue to recognise projects of high scientific quality, as well as their demonstrable impacts on the academic community, society or the economy. Any timeduring or after award: Grant holder submits Impact Record Grant holder submits Outputs (including full text) ESRC case studies on web, and regular updates of ESRC impact now featured on twitter Send updates to Saskia.walcott@esrc.ac.uk

  18. End of award report- ESRC (3 months after project end) a) Summary of Impacts to date Please summarise any impacts of the project to date, referring where appropriate to associated outputs recorded on ESRC Society Today. This should include both scientific impacts (relevant to the academic community) and economic and societal impacts (relevant to broader society). The impact can be relevant to any organisation, community or individual. [Max. 400 words] b) Anticipated/Potential Future Impacts Please outline any anticipated or potential impacts (scientific or economic and societal) that you believe your project might have in future. [Max. 200 words]

  19. IMPACT REPORT - ESRC (12 months after project end) • 1. SCIENTIFIC IMPACT • A Please summarise below the scientific impact(s) your project has had. [Max 250 words] • B Please outline the findings and outputs from your project which have had the scientific impact(s) outlined in 1A. [Max 250 words] • C Please outline how these impacts were achieved. [Max 250 words] • D Please outline who the findings and outputs outlined above had an impact upon. This can include specific academics/researchers through to broader academic groups. [Max 250 words] • ECONOMIC AND SOCIETAL IMPACT • A Please summarise below the economic and societal impact(s) your project has had. [Max 250 words] • B Please outline the findings and outputs from your project which have had the economic and societal impact(s) outlined in 2A. [Max 250 words] • C Please outline how these impacts were achieved. [Max 250 words] • D Please outline who the findings and outputs outlined above had an impact upon. This can be at a broad societal level through to specific individuals or groups. [Max 250 words] • UNEXPECTED AND POTENTIAL FUTURE IMPACTS • A Unexpected Impacts •  Please note which, if any, of the impacts that your research has had were unexpected at the outset of the research, explaining where possible why you think this was the case. [Max 250 words] • B Potential Future Impacts • If you have a clear idea of the impact your research is likely to have in the future please detail these below. [Max 250 words] • IMPACT LIMITATIONS • A Limited scientific impact •  Please state below any major scientific difficulties that have limited the scientific impact of your research. The statement should refer to an effect on impact rather than simply detail research difficulties. [Max 250 words] • B Limited economic and societal impact • ESRC recognises that some of the research it funds will not have an economic or societal impact in the short term. Please explain briefly below if this is the case for your project, and refer to your grant application where relevant. [Max 250 words] • C No impact to date • Please note that ESRC projects are evaluated on the basis of their scientific and/or economic and societal impact. Grant holders are expected to report any future impacts as they occur using the Impact Record, downloadable from the ESRC Society Today website. • If you have no impacts at this stage, please give reasons below.[Max 250 words]

  20. New project grading scale The new grading scale allows ESRC researchers to achieve the highest evaluation grade through either outstanding academic OR practical impact, or a combination of both: 1. Outstanding – research of the highest international quality, with publications submitted to (or published in) leading journals or other academic outlets; and/or evidence of major impact on policy and practice. 2. Very Good – research of strong international quality and impact within its subfield and publications submitted to (or published in) leading journals or other academic outlets; and/or evidence of substantial impact on policy and practice. 3. Good – research of international quality with publications submitted to (or published in) wellregarded journals or other academic outlets; and/or some evidence of impact on policy and practice 4. Satisfactory – research of good national standard with publications submitted to (or published in) good research outlets; and/or likely future impact on policy and practice. This category would include problematic outcomes outside of the awardholder’s control. 5. Weak – research of subnational standard with no publications submitted to (or published in) good research outlets; and no evidence of likely impact on policy and practice. Or work that has fails to address some of the objectives agreed with the ESRC. This category would include problematic outcomes resulting from poor project management. 6. Unacceptable – research of poor standard and no publications submitted to (or published in) good research outlets; and no evidence of likely impact on policy and practice. Or work that has failed to address most of the objectives agreed with the ESRC.

  21. Useful links RCUK http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/innovation/expectationssei.pdf ESRC http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Support/esrcexpectations/faq.aspx#0 Strategic Plan’ can be downloaded from here. Includes impact case studies http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/strategicplan/ Taking Stock report http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/taking_stock_tcm6-30940.pdf Also a lot of guidance on Je-S

  22. End

More Related