An introduction to impact for qualitative researchers
Sally Marlow is Professor of Practice in Public Understanding of Mental Health Research and Associate Dean for Impact at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience. She has extensive experience in making research accessible to non-academic audiences and regularly appears on BBC radio discussing topics in mental health. In this blog, she unpacks the idea of impact and asks: what does it mean for qualitative research?
No-one involved in research, academic or otherwise, can have failed to notice the increasing emphasis employers and funders are placing on “impact”. The problem is, impact can mean many things, and different values are placed not only on various types of impact, but on the various ways we measure and assess impact.
It is broadly agreed that impact can be conceptualised in two ways. Firstly academic impact is defined as the demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to academic advances, across and within disciplines, including significant advances in understanding, methods, theory and application. However, when people refer to impact, they are usually referring to a second type of impact: research impact, sometimes also known as non-academic impact.
UKRI defines research impact as the demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and the economy. NIHR similarly describes impact as the demonstrable contribution that research makes to society and the economy, of benefit to individuals, organisations and nations. My organisation, King’s College London, defines research impact as the demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes, beyond academia, to society, the environment and the economy, and effect on individuals, groups, organisations and/or nations and innovation.
For too long academia has had a narrow focus on publishing and grant income, and many of us have been brutalised by the systems we work in to perceive impact as a bureaucratic process.
However it is defined, impact generally means positive change from the status quo, for example in terms of better health outcomes for the public or for particular groups of service users, carers and families, or for society and the communities within it. This might include those using NHS or non statutory services, or accessing support from charities. Impact might be enabled through policy changes or new guidelines and implementation of new treatments or approaches. There may be economic impact if research leads to cost savings or efficiencies. Raising public awareness and engaging with communities also can increase impact, for example through public health campaigns and media coverage of misunderstood and complex issues.
So where does qualitative research sit in all of this?
As has been documented many times by both quantitative and qualitative researchers, quantitative research is particularly suited to establishing cause-and-effect as well as testing hypotheses, and providing snapshots of prevalence of characteristics, attitudes and practices in large populations. Qualitative research meanwhile can be a vital step in developing hypotheses and helping us to understand processes (e.g. Steckler et al 1992).
When it comes to research impact, qualitative research lends itself to two areas. Firstly, qualitative research can itself be impactful, for example when understanding how an intervention works leads to better implementation and take-up of that intervention. But qualitative research can also be used to evaluate impact, and evaluation methodologies often have a very strong qualitative component, e.g. Contribution Analysis (Riley et al 2018) and the Qualitative Impact Assessment Protocol (QuIP) which can be found here.
There is no one-size fits all way to evaluate impact, and just as in research, the rich, detailed and valid data produced by qualitative methods can supplement quantitative analyses or sit alone as evidence of impact. Qualitative research can demonstrate to others how impact is experienced. For the Research Excellence Framework, where universities are required to submit evidence of their research and its impact every seven years to UKRI, impact is assessed by written case studies. These contain both qualitative and quantitative data alongside letters of support, media articles and records of citations in policy documents, in whatever mix is most appropriate.
I believe that most of those who come into research do so because they want to make a difference – they want their work to have impact. This is particularly true in healthcare research, as I see from my own colleagues at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience. For too long academia has had a narrow focus on publishing and grant income, and many of us have been brutalised by the systems we work in to perceive impact as a bureaucratic process –yet one more thing we are measured on, whereas actually it should be at the centre of what we do. Increasingly institutions and funders are realising that impact needs to be recognised, celebrated, funded and rewarded, not just demanded, and the opportunities for qualitative research to make a difference in this new landscape are enormous.