Search results

Building on the concept of “impact literacy” established in a previous paper from Bayley and Phipps, here we extend the principles of impact literacy in light of further insights into sector practice. More specifically, we focus on three additions needed in response to the sector-wide growth of impact: (1) differential levels of impact literacy; (2) institutional impact literacy and environment for impact; and (3) issues of ethics and values in research impact. This paper invites the sector to consider the relevance of all dimensions in establishing, maintaining and strengthening impact within the research landscape. We explore implications for individual professional development, institutional capacity building and ethical collaboration to maximise societal benefit.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate whether unstructured graduate student research internships conducted in collaboration with community agencies build capacity and knowledge for students and community.

The paper reports the results of four semi‐structured interviews and 20 pre‐ and post‐internship surveys of students' perceptions of their internship activities; whether participation built research capacity in students and community resulted in the creation of new knowledge and promoted ongoing partnerships and relationships.

Students reported generating concrete outcomes for community partners, the acquisition of new research and professional skills, plus an increased understanding of theoretical knowledge. Many students also maintained ongoing relationships with their organizational partners beyond the terms of their internship.

Limitations to this study are the relatively small sample size and reliance on self‐report measures.

The paper describes a model for student‐community engagement that benefits both community and students.

As universities explore their relationships with their local communities, graduate student internships have tremendous potential for supporting research and knowledge‐based needs of local communities, while providing valuable skills and training to a cohort of students in bridging academic research to real world solutions. These students may go on to be community engaged scholars, or research trained personnel in the community.

The results presented in this paper demonstrate the benefits to graduate students in scholarship of engagement programs that prioritize true partnership between students, universities and communities.

The aim of this paper is to report on student perceptions of 24 graduate student internships funded in 2007‐2008 by York University's Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) Unit. These internships provided opportunities for students to engage in research with community agencies around real world problems.

The principal sources of data were semi‐structured student interviews, conducted as part of an overall evaluation of the unit by an evaluation team, and student responses to surveys administered by KMb staff.

The significant findings were that students reported acquiring research and professional skills, plus a new understanding of theoretical knowledge, and that projects generated concrete outcomes for their community partners. Several students maintained ongoing relationships with their organizational partners beyond the terms of their internship, creating opportunities for ongoing benefits to both students and community partners. Students also identified areas of potential improvement, notably, there is an opportunity to strengthen the experience through integration into a formal curriculum.

Limitations to this study are the relatively small sample size (n=20) and reliance on self‐report measures.

As universities explore their relationships with their local communities, graduate student internships appear to have tremendous potential for supporting research and knowledge‐based needs of local communities, while providing valuable skills and training to a cohort of students in bridging academic research to real world solutions.

This article makes an original contribution by focusing on benefits to graduate students in scholarship of engagement programs that prioritize true partnership between students, universities and communities.

Although supporting and assessing the non-academic “impact” of research are not entirely new developments in higher education, academics and research institutions are under increasing pressure to produce work that has a measurable influence outside the academy. With a view to supporting the solution of complex societal issues with evidence and expertise, and against the background of increased emphasis on impact in the United Kingdom's 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF2021) and a proliferation of impact guides and tools, this article offers a simple, easy to remember framework for designing impactful research. We call this framework “The 7Cs of Impact” – Context, Communities, Constituencies, Challenge, Channels, Communication and Capture.

Drawing on core elements of the Policy Institute at King's College London's Impact by Design training course and the authors' practical experience in supporting and delivering impact, this paper outlines how this framework can help address key aspects across the lifecycle of a research project and plan, from identifying the intended impact of research and writing it into grants and proposals, to engaging project stakeholders and assessing whether the project has had the desired impact.

While preparations for current and future REF submissions may benefit from using this framework, this paper sets out the “7Cs” with a more holistic view of impact in mind, seeking to aid researchers in identifying, capturing, and communicating how research projects can and do contribute to the improvement in society.

The purpose of this Editorial is to introduce key themes in the area of student‐community engagement (SCE) and the papers included in this special issue.

The paper discusses dominant trends in the current context.

The selection of papers in this issue represent the range of programmes that have been developed over the past five or so years and indicate what they have, and have not been able to achieve. However, the recent context indicates an acceleration of the expectations placed on higher education to develop socially responsible citizens and to create graduates who will be able to solve the complex problems of an increasingly complex world.

The paper provides a background to SCE and the changing role and context of higher education.

I SUSPECT that we praisers of past times, we who walk in spirit with the mighty bookmen of bygone days, are now somewhat in the minority. That being so, it was a heightened pleasure to hit upon Mr. Phipps Hemming's delightful gossip on Richard Heber in a recent number of the Review. We admire Richard, I make bold to say, far more than we admire the probably more worthy Reginald. Decidedly the former's labours—whether or not pointless and mistaken—deserve not to be forgotten. Father of all the “second copy” and “duplicate” men he undoubtedly was: yet he somehow contrived to leave a healthy tradition behind him. For Richard Heber was no mere accumulator, but an appreciative scholar and a cultured gentleman beside. Long may his name be remembered, even in times when his “three copy” rule has fallen into derision.

This scoping review utilizes findings from 80 articles to build a research model to study research-practice-policy networks in K-12 education systems. The purpose of this study was to generate a broad understanding of the variation in conceptualizations of research-practice-policy partnerships, rather than dominant conceptualizations.

Arskey and O'Malley's (2005) five stage scoping review process was utilized including: (1) a consultative process with partners to identify research questions, (2) identify relevant studies, (3) study selection based on double-blind peer review, (4) charting the data and (5) collating, summarizing and reporting the results in a research model identifying key dimensions and components of research-practice partnerships (RPPs).

Coburn et al. (2013) definition of RPPs arose as an anchoring definition within the emerging field. This article proposes a model for understanding the organization and work of RPPs arising from the review. At the core lies shared goals, coproduction and multistakeholder collaboration organized around three dimensions: (1) Systems and structures: funding, governance, strategic roles, policy environment, system alignment; (2) Collaborative processes: improvement planning and data use, communication, trusting relationships, brokering activities, capacity building; (3) Continuous Learning Cycles: social innovation, implementation, evaluation and adaptation.

By using a common framework, data across RPPs and from different studies can be compared. Research foci might test links between elements such as capacity building and impacts, or test links between systems and structures and how those elements influence collaborative processes and the impact of the RPPs. Research could test the generalizability of the framework across contexts. Through the application and use of the research model, various elements might be refuted, confirmed or refined. More work is needed to use this framework to study RPPs, and to develop accompanying data collection methods and instruments for each dimension and element.

The practical applications of the framework are to be used by RPPs as a learning framework for strategic planning, iterative learning cycles and evaluation. Many of the elements of the framework could be used to check-in with partners on how things are going – such as exploring how communication is working and whether these structures move beyond merely updates and reporting toward joint problem-solving. The framework could also be used prior to setting up an RPP as an organizing approach to making decisions about how that RPP might best operate.

Despite increased attention on multistakeholder networks in education, the conceptual understanding is still limited. This article analyzed theoretical and empirical work to build a systematic model to study RPPs in education. This research model can be used to: identify RPP configurations, analyze the impact of RPPs, and to compare similarities and differences across configurations.

The creation and development of candidate-politician brands, otherwise known as political co-brands, remains an under-researched area of study. This is supported by calls for more understanding on political co-brands and how they are positioned and managed by their creators. Framed by the concepts of internal brand identity and co-branding, this paper aims to investigate how political co-brand identity is constructed and managed over time, exploring alignment between the political co-brand and political corporate party brand.

An interpretivist revelatory multi-case study approach, using in-depth interviews, was conducted with three political co-brands (candidates-politicians) from the UK Conservative Party. The three cases represented constituencies across the UK from the North, Midlands and South of the country. The in-depth elite interviews were conducted July 2015 to September 2015. Methodological triangulation was also adopted to assess the coherency of emerging themes with online and offline materials and documents. A two-stage thematic analytical approach was used to interpret the findings.

This multiple case study demonstrates how successful political co-brands create and develop identities tailored to their constituency, often distinct from the corporate political brand and developed several years before electoral success at the ballot box. In addition, this study reveals that political co-brands are dichotomous in terms of strategically managing a degree of alignment with the corporate political brand yet maintaining a degree of independence.

This study builds on limited existing concepts such as co-branding and political brand identity as a means of critical application. Existing research on co-branding remains a “relatively limited” and complex area of study and generally focuses on fictitious brands. Political brand identity remains an under-researched area. This in turn supports the development and advancement of political branding as an area of study. This paper highlights the opportunities of using the strategic approach of co-branding to help conceptualise “candidates-politicians” as political brands’ which up until now, “candidate-politician brands” have been difficult to define unlike the extensive research on corporate political brands.

This study has implications for practice too. Organisations and different typologies of political brands will be able to use this political co-brand identity framework as a diagnostic mechanism to investigate their co-brands current identity, assess alignment and make strategic changes or reposition the envisaged identity if desired. Similarly, organisations can use this framework, key dimensions and factors as a blueprint to design and build new political brands at a corporate and/or local level.

This study has implications for brands beyond the world of politics. Brands can adopt the political co-brand identity framework developed in this study as a pragmatic tool to investigate internally created co-brand identity and explore alignment with the corporate party brand identity. In addition, this research adds to the limited research on non-fictitious co-brands and co-branding literature at large and addresses the calls for more research on brand identity in new settings.