Thread by @profmarkreed

It is rare that I read an academic book from cover to cover so fast but James Gow and Henry Redwood's new book on impact has so many useful insights! Here are some of the best bits...

Chapter 2 contains the most sophisticated discussion of impact as a concept and definition that I have seen, concluding in the end that we need to retain an ambiguous and open definition if it is to capture and "let bloom" the depth and breadth of what is possible

They provide new evidence that the highest rated impacts in REF2014 were typically based on work that started in the 1990s - impact is slow to bloom in every discipline

The vast majority of the 111 high scoring case studies they analysed had significant and/or prestigious research funding. Previous analyses I've seen have been restricted to single disciplines but this finding was across the board

High scoring case studies also had substantial funding from beneficiaries to help develop impacts

There was strong evidence of intensive researcher and beneficiary engagement, for example via embedded roles in projects or institutions

High scoring cases tended to quote testimonials extensively in the body of their text, with some case studies structured around quotes

High scoring case studies were typically compound and/or cumulative, integrating a range of related impacts into the narrative

Two thirds of high scoring case studies mentioned media or public engagement, though the authors emphasise this may not be a causal factor. It is clear that engagement is an important and overlooked aspect of impact, even if it is not always easy to link to instrumental outcomes

Many of the other findings chime strongly with the work @BellaReichard led with me and colleagues here nature.com/articles/s4159…, which Chapter 5 of the new book summarises and subsequently builds on.

Find out more about Gow and Redwood's new book here: g.co/kgs/zYjEUM