Outputs / Dissemination / Impact

Contents:

- AHRC specific

- ESRC specific

AHRC - Specific Requirements

Please comment on the proposed dissemination strategy and Impact, including:

• The extent to which the programme of work will result in high quality public output(s),

• Whether the plans to increase impact are appropriate and justified, given the nature of the proposed research, and whether sufficient attention has been given to who the beneficiaries might be and appropriate ways to engage with them throughout the project.

Please also choose from the two sets of tick boxes provided to rate:

• The proposed outputs and dissemination strategy, using ‘Outstanding’, ‘Very Good’, ‘Good’, ‘Adequate’ or ‘Unsatisfactory.

• The impact, including identification of potential beneficiaries, using ‘Outstanding’, ‘Very Good’, ‘Good’, ‘Adequate’ or ‘Unsatisfactory.

Academic beneficiaries
(note - this section is not relevant to Follow-on Funding reviews)

All proposals should include appropriate and effective plans for communicating and disseminating the research to relevant academic audiences in order to ensure that the research outputs lead to advances in relevant research fields. In assessing these plans you are asked to consider in particular the ‘academic beneficiaries’ section of the proposal as well as the communication and dissemination plans described in the case for support. Your assessment of these should be reflected in your grading for the ‘proposed outputs and dissemination strategy’.

Impact

Your assessment of the impact should take into account the guidance below on peer reviewing excellence with impact. In particular you should consider what is appropriate, reasonable and /or expected for research of the nature proposed in the application. Your assessment should also take into account the diversity and variety of forms of impact (economic, social, cultural, policy, quality of life etc), timescales within which impacts might emerge and approaches through which impact might be achieved.

Excellent research without obvious or immediate impact will continue funded by the Research Councils and should not be disadvantaged within the assessment process. Where applicants explain why beneficiaries or impacts beyond academia cannot be identified at this stage of the research and you judge this to be appropriate you should not disadvantage the application (e.g. the impact may be graded as adequate).

However, where insufficient attention has been given to potential beneficiaries or impacts outside academia this should be reflected in your assessment and comments relating to the impact; similarly where proposals include particularly strong or innovative approaches this should be reflected in your assessment and comments. Any suggestions for improvements to impact plans in your comments would be welcomed and will be fed back to applicants for response prior to consideration by panels.

Research Networking:

Where appropriate, please comment on the plans to engage any relevant non-academic groups in the networking activities.

Please comment on the likelihood that what is proposed will have an impact beyond the lifetime of the award.

Please comment on the likelihood that what is proposed will rapidly advance thinking on a particular theme or issue in order to enhance knowledge and understanding.

Follow-on Funding Scheme:

Based on the information contained in the proposal, with particular reference to the Impact Summary, please comment on:

• The potential for the proposed activities and outputs to enhance the value and impact of the base research.

• The extent to which the project delivers benefits to all the partners.

• The level of engagement with target audiences or users and the extent to which their needs have informed the development of the proposal and

• The likelihood that the project will meet those needs and have a lasting transformative effect.

Peer Reviewing Excellence with Impact

The excellent research funded by the UK Research Councils has a huge impact on the wellbeing and economy of the UK. Working together with our wider communities and other partners, we want to ensure that these impacts are effectively demonstrated and supported, throughout the research lifecycle, in order to add value, stimulate interest from wider stakeholders, including the general public, and, where needed, actively highlight the need for continued investment in the research base.

The following principles define, in broad terms, the approach and expectations of the Research Councils:

• Excellent research with high impact is central to Research Council activities.

• The onus rests with research applicants to demonstrate how they would achieve excellence and impact.

• Research Council guidance and assessment procedures aim to:

• Maximise both excellence and impact, and

• Ensure user perspectives are strongly represented.

The Research Councils define impact as the demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and the economy. This definition accords with the Royal Charters of the Councils and with HM Treasury guidance on the appraisal of economic impact. Impact embraces all the extremely diverse ways in which research-related knowledge and skills benefit individuals, organisations and nations by:

• Fostering global economic performance, and specifically the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom

• Increasing the effectiveness of public services and policy, and

• Enhancing quality of life, health and creative output

Impacts from research can:

• Take many forms,

• Become manifest at different stages in the research lifecycle and beyond,

• Be promoted in many different ways.

Research Council assessment processes reflect this diversity and variety.

Back to top

ESRC - Specific Requirements

Please comment on the proposed plans, including:

• The extent to which the proposed project or programme of work will result in high quality output(s),

• Whether the plans to maximise scientific, societal or economic impact are appropriate and justified, given the nature of the proposed research, and whether sufficient attention has been given to who the beneficiaries might be and appropriate ways to engage with them throughout the life-course of the project or afterwards. It is important to remember that ESRC continues to value research that is primarily oriented towards the scientific community.

If you do not feel competent to comment on potential impacts, please select "Unable to assess".

Academic Beneficiaries

All proposals should include appropriate and effective plans for communicating and disseminating the research to relevant academic audiences in order to ensure that the research outputs lead to advances in relevant research fields. In assessing these plans you are asked to consider in particular the ‘academic beneficiaries’ section of the proposal as well as the communication, impact and dissemination plans described in the case for support. Your assessment of these should be reflected in your grading for "outputs, dissemination and impact".

Impact on users and beneficiaries beyond the academic community

Applicants are expected to have considered the potential scientific, societal and economic impacts of their research.

Applicants should actively consider how these impacts can be maximised and developed within their proposal.

Within the case for support applicants should:

• Consider potential beneficiaries involved in the development of the proposal and delivery of the grant where appropriate.  This should cover who will benefit from the proposed research, and the relevance of the research to these beneficiaries.

• Explain what steps they will take, to provide opportunities for users to benefit from their research, and to ensure that their research has maximum economic and societal impact.

To be effective, all communication, engagement and impact activities must be planned in detail and properly resourced in the proposal.

We fully recognise the non-linear, emergent and diffuse nature of effects arising from the research we fund and that impact cannot be predicted or guaranteed.

Impact

Opportunities for making an impact may arise, and should be taken at any stage during the research lifecycle: the planning and research design stage; the period of funding; and all activities that relate to the project up to - and including - the time when funding has ended

The research lifecycle therefore includes knowledge exchange and impact realisation activities - including reporting and publication, and the archiving, future use, sharing and linking of data.  It is important that researchers have in place a robust strategy for maximising the likelihood of impact opportunities and their own capacity for taking advantage of these.

It is important that applicants have set out how they intend to identify and actively engage relevant users of the research and stakeholders (within and beyond the academic community including, for instance the public sector, private sector, civil society or the wider public in general) and include evidence of any existing engagement with relevant end users.

Applicants should articulate a clear understanding of the context and needs of these users and consider ways for the proposed research to meet or impact upon these needs. The proposal should also outline how the legacy of proposed activity will be managed to engage participants, stakeholders and the wider social science community.

Additional information on ESRC impact definition can be found here: https://esrc.ukri.org/research/impact-toolkit/

Assessment

Your assessment should take into account the guidance outlined above, and should consider what is appropriate, reasonable and /or expected for research of the nature proposed in the application. Your assessment should also take into account the diversity and variety of forms of impact (economic, societal, policy, quality of life etc); timescales within which impacts might emerge; and approaches through which impact might be achieved.

Excellent research without obvious or immediate impact continues to be funded by UK Research and Innovation and should not be disadvantaged within the assessment process. Where applicants explain why beneficiaries or impacts beyond academia cannot be identified at this stage of the research and you judge this to be appropriate, or where research is stated to be oriented towards academic beneficiaries only, you should not disadvantage the application.

However, where insufficient attention has been given to potential beneficiaries or impacts outside academia this should be reflected in your assessment and comments relating to impact plans; similarly where proposals include particularly strong or innovative approaches this should be reflected in your assessment and comments. Any suggestions for improvements to applicants' plans to maximise impact in your comments would be welcomed and will be fed back in the normal way to applicants.