Change, ten years of (REF) impact and six months of learning

On Friday, I took part in an ARMA UK (Association of Research Managers and Administrators) Research Development Special Interest Group (SIG) drop-in session titled ‘What has strategy got to do with research development?’ moderated by Dr Aygen Kurt Dickson . This was a question that obviously appealed given I’m six months into a new role that sits in the 英国曼彻斯特大学 Research Strategy Team and covers the interrelated areas of research development and impact.

Dr Sharron Pleydell-Pearce (Head of Strategic Research Development Team, Oxford University) shared her experience of developing a team that has the skills, knowledge and capacity to nurture, support and manage funding applications that traverse traditional institutional boundaries (e.g., challenge-led, thematic calls and those that foreground team science). It was heartening to hear that the team had prioritised many of the things we are doing – sector intelligence gathering, space for reflection, and embedding mechanisms for evidence-based learning. It was also great to be in a (virtual) room with other people who were grappling with how to adapt and flourish in this new landscape.

Refreshing my memory of the criteria used in the REF2014 impact template for a report that same day, I realised that it was just over ten years ago that I first had to unpack REF definitions of impact and work out how to respond to all the questions we’re all so familiar with now. This made me pause to think about commonalities between the evolution of impact within the sector and the shifts that will doubtless come with these new drivers (likewise Research Culture). These are some of the things I’m bringing with me:

Networks: Although there are many external and internal forces that try to pit us against each other, colleagues in other organisations are not competitors. As the ARMA and other SIGs show, we benefit hugely from sharing ideas and mutual support, particularly - as with impact previously - when we are all in uncharted waters. Learning and working together, we can minimise duplication, build a knowledge base and steer sector-wide change, creating the conditions for institutions of all sizes and compositions to thrive.

People: We can learn many lessons from public engagement and coproduction within and outside of the sector. Engaged listening, relationship development, collective reflection and iterative refinement take time. This is as true of work with internal collaborators as external – something we often forget. We need to value and draw on the lived experiences and knowledge of colleagues across the institution, as well as ‘beyond academia’ – many of whom are treated as the latter at present. ?

Motivation: Relatedly, different teams and individuals can have very different drivers. Stasis is easier than change, particularly if you’re still meeting the core goals you’re held accountable for at faculty/directorate level. It’s important to build shared goals and understanding of the mutual benefit of the projects you embark on. And personal values often play as critical a role as institutional recognition.

Expertise: Coming from the museum sector, which has seen a shift from specialism to ‘connecting’ roles that demand a broader set of skills, this is familiar territory. Those, like me, who are steering this type of work may bring sector knowledge, but our expertise is also in being a ‘spanner’ as I joke with friends. It’s about knowing (and knowing about) people, how and when to involve them and when not to (not everybody needs to be at every meeting). With multiple stakeholders, busy diaries and conflicting priorities, project management, clarity of purpose and planning skills are hugely important.

Teams: The landscape really is moving towards team science (or team research as we prefer to call it at UoM). These teams may need to be assembled quickly in response to particular funding calls – and that’s where the aforementioned ‘spanners’ or knowledge brokers come in. Just as we have become accustomed to cultivating links between a wide range of internal and external stakeholders to maximise impact, creating spaces for dialogue and connection can make it easier to bring together these more ad-hoc teams.

*a late addition - Storytelling: This is something Sharron mentioned, which is also a central part of impact work. Weaving a convincing narrative based on input from multiple contributors takes dialogue, negotiation and (again) time. Building trust across the team is crucial - different elements will need to be prioritised over others for the sake of the whole. Moreover, if you’re struggling to tell the story, it raises questions about fit - to the call, of the team. If you’re not convinced, will a reviewer be?

Learning: It’s easy to get carried away with all the things that could be done and plough in idea-first without building the scaffolding for learning – particularly when time is limited, or funding has to be spent within a defined period. Nevertheless, it’s so important to test the logic of even seemingly brilliant ideas. It’s difficult to slow down when you’re filled with enthusiasm, but it can be better to start small and focus on incremental change and continuous improvement. These things may not make as much of a splash (they’re more about embedding than ‘launching’) but they are more likely to succeed if they’re evidence-based and have buy-in.

And finally? Not everything will work. With so many moving parts, it’s impossible to control outcomes. I’m hoping to (co) create a culture where we work together to identify and address potential barriers to success before they arise, but where failure is an accepted part of growth. Let’s see where we are in another ten years!

?

?

?

?

?

?