Writing Workshops
Coming Soon!
Coming Soon!
Policy Brief: Embedding Impact in Research from Design to Dissemination
Title: Designing for Impact: Embedding Societal Relevance Across the Research Lifecycle
Summary: To maximize the societal value of research, investigators must move beyond the traditional view of research as a linear process ending in publication. Instead, research should begin with a clear impact strategy during the design stage, incorporate opportunities to embed impact throughout the research process, and culminate in a well-planned communication and dissemination strategy. Without these components, even the most rigorous research may fail to achieve meaningful impact.
Key Messages:
Begin with the end in mind: design research with intended impact and beneficiaries clearly identified.
Engage stakeholders continuously throughout the research process to ensure relevance and adaptation.
Dissemination is not an afterthought; it must be strategic, multimodal, and audience-specific.
Background: Governments and funders worldwide are increasingly prioritizing research impact in evaluation frameworks, such as the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) and Horizon Europe’s Impact Pathways. The research community is shifting toward an impact-first model that requires intentionality from the outset.
Policy Recommendations:
Require Impact Strategies at Design Stage:
Mandate a Theory of Change or Impact Pathway in all major research funding applications.
Train researchers in impact planning and stakeholder mapping.
Support Lifecycle Integration of Impact:
Fund mechanisms for ongoing stakeholder engagement.
Encourage reflexive project management and adaptive methodologies.
Invest in Strategic Communication and Dissemination:
Provide access to knowledge brokers, policy translators, and science communicators.
Support open access, multimedia outputs, and community-based knowledge sharing.
Implementation Enablers:
Develop institutional impact support units.
Reward co-produced research and non-traditional outputs in performance evaluations.
Conclusion: Embedding impact from design to dissemination is no longer optional—it is essential to research excellence and relevance. Institutions, funders, and researchers must collaborate to support infrastructure, training, and incentives that enable this shift.
Prepared by: Paul Consalvi, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, University of Tokyo Date: March 2025
Here's a narrative literature review built around the argument that:
Research should start with an Impact Strategy during the design stage.
Researchers can embed impact at each subsequent stage of the research process.
Impactful research requires a well-designed communications and dissemination strategy, or it risks failing to achieve its intended effect.
There is a growing recognition that research must not only advance knowledge but also generate real-world benefits. Across funding agencies, academic institutions, and policy environments, the term impact has moved from a desirable outcome to an essential component of scholarly work. This shift is particularly evident in frameworks such as the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) and similar mechanisms worldwide, which evaluate research based on both academic quality and societal impact (REF 2021). This review explores the evolving literature that supports embedding an impact strategy from the earliest design stages of research, implementing opportunities for impact throughout the research lifecycle, and emphasizing communication and dissemination as vital components for achieving meaningful outcomes.
Several scholars argue that the foundation of impactful research lies in its initial framing and design. In her influential work, Sivertsen (2017) emphasizes that research impact is most effective when it is intentional, meaning that researchers must clarify potential beneficiaries, pathways to application, and long-term outcomes before data collection begins.
Reed et al. (2014) advance the concept of "impact literacy," urging researchers to articulate a theory of change or impact pathway during the project design phase. This planning includes identifying stakeholders, co-defining problems, and aligning research questions with specific needs or challenges. Similarly, Bornmann (2013) highlights the importance of aligning research objectives with broader societal goals, such as those articulated in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as a framing device that can guide both topic selection and methodological design.
Moreover, funding agencies increasingly mandate an explicit impact plan in grant applications. The National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Broader Impacts Criterion and the Horizon Europe Impact Pathways frameworks reflect this policy trend, emphasizing early-stage planning for knowledge transfer, innovation, and community engagement.
While initial planning is critical, research impact does not depend solely on front-loaded strategy. The literature suggests that impact is often emergent and can be cultivated at multiple touchpoints throughout the research lifecycle. Derrick and Samuel (2016) propose a "whole-project" model of impact integration, identifying key decision points—such as method choice, partner engagement, and interpretation of findings—as opportunities to revise or enhance impact potential.
Spaapen and van Drooge (2011) introduce the concept of productive interactions—ongoing exchanges between researchers and stakeholders—as a mechanism for co-producing impact during implementation, analysis, and refinement phases. These interactions help researchers remain attuned to real-world applicability, ethical concerns, and adaptive strategies, especially in fast-changing contexts.
Additionally, Penfield et al. (2014) caution against treating impact as an administrative burden or final deliverable. Instead, they propose embedding a reflexive, iterative process that allows research teams to learn from intermediate results and stakeholder feedback, adjusting their approach to optimize relevance and utility.
Even well-designed, socially engaged research can fall short of its impact goals if the communication and dissemination strategy is ineffective. Scholars consistently point to a “last mile” problem in academic work: failure to translate findings into formats and channels accessible to target audiences. Nutley, Walter, and Davies (2007) highlight how knowledge utilization is often contingent on timely, targeted communication, and that evidence alone is rarely sufficient to change practice or policy.
In response, Greenhalgh et al. (2016) argue for a strategic, multi-modal dissemination plan, tailored to stakeholder preferences and decision-making contexts. This includes not just academic publishing but also policy briefs, media outreach, open access platforms, infographics, and community dialogues. Similarly, Kirkpatrick et al. (2019) advocate that researchers treat dissemination as an embedded practice, not a final task, requiring capacity-building in storytelling, design, and public engagement.
Furthermore, impact brokers and knowledge mobilization specialists are increasingly recognized as necessary mediators between researchers and end-users (Meagher, 2020). These professionals help translate complex findings into actionable insights, map stakeholder networks, and align timing and messaging to policy windows and public interest.
The literature clearly supports a lifecycle approach to research impact. Beginning with a well-articulated impact strategy during the design phase increases clarity and accountability. But embedding impact throughout the research process—by cultivating stakeholder relationships, remaining adaptive, and responding to context—is equally important. Finally, without a strategic and accessible dissemination effort, even the most socially valuable findings may go unnoticed or unused.
In this evolving paradigm, researchers must move beyond the mindset of publishing as the endpoint and embrace the idea that designing for impact is not an add-on—it is integral to research excellence.
Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217-233.
Derrick, G. E., & Samuel, G. N. (2016). The evaluation scale: Exploring decisions about societal impact in peer review panels. Minerva, 54(1), 75–97.
Greenhalgh, T., Raftery, J., Hanney, S., & Glover, M. (2016). Research impact: A narrative review. BMC Medicine, 14(78).
Kirkpatrick, L., Bednarek, A., Cvitanovic, C., & Levin, P. S. (2019). Designing research for impact: Principles to inform the science–policy interface. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 21–30.
Meagher, L. R. (2020). The role of knowledge brokers in the research-policy system: A multi-level conceptual framework. Evidence & Policy, 16(3), 403–417.
Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services. Policy Press.
Penfield, T., Baker, M. J., Scoble, R., & Wykes, M. C. (2014). Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Research Evaluation, 23(1), 21–32.
Reed, M. S., et al. (2014). Improving the impact of research through co‐production. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(4), 475–488.
Sivertsen, G. (2017). Unique, but still best practice? The Research Excellence Framework (REF) from an international perspective. Palgrave Communications, 3(1).
Spaapen, J., & van Drooge, L. (2011). Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 211–218.