Evaluating impact from research: A methodological framework

Abstract

Background: Interest in impact evaluation has grown rapidly as research funders increasingly demand evidence that their investments lead to public benefits.

Aims: This paper analyses literature to provide a new definition of research impact and impact evaluation, develops a typology of research impact evaluation designs, and proposes a methodological framework to guide evaluations of the significance and reach of impact that can be attributed to research.

Method: An adapted Grounded Theory Analysis of research impact evaluation frameworks drawn from cross-disciplinary peer-reviewed and grey literature.

Results: Recognizing the subjective nature of impacts as they are perceived by different groups in different times, places and cultures, we define research impact evaluation as the process of assessing the significance and reach of both positive and negative effects of research. Five types of impact evaluation design are identified encompassing a range of evaluation methods and approaches: i) experimental and statistical methods; ii) textual, oral and arts-based methods; iii) systems analysis methods; iv) indicator-based approaches; and v) evidence synthesis approaches. Our guidance enables impact evaluation design to be tailored to the aims and context of the evaluation, for example choosing a design to establish a body of research as a necessary (e.g. a significant contributing factor amongst many) or sufficient (e.g. sole, direct) cause of impact, and choosing the most appropriate evaluation design for the type of impact being evaluated.

Conclusion: Using the proposed definitions, typology and methodological framework, researchers, funders and other stakeholders working across multiple disciplines can select a suitable evaluation design and methods to evidence the impact of research from any discipline.