1. Writing credible impact sections of grant application
Dr Ged Hall

2. Session outline What the sections should cover Common pitfalls
Suggested approach for developing the text
How to stand out
We’ll use the Research Council as a specific example and then expand out into some charity funders

3. RCUK applications Impact definition
“RCUK defines impact as the demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and the economy”
Thankfully, the REF2021 initial decisions said the REF and RCUK definitions will align their definitions of academic impact and wider impact.

4. The questions you need to answer
Who benefits?
What benefits do they get?
What can I do to help them receive these benefits?
Impact Summary
Pathways to Impact

5. Your IMPACT definition
Impact Summary
Pathways to Impact
Max characters
Publicised: no confidential information
WHO will benefit from the research? Non-academic only
HOW will they benefit?
In the short- (within project) , mid- (up to 5 years after end of project) and long-term (after 10 years of end of project). Exact timescales dependent on project / type of impact
Max. 2 pages
Plan of activities during the project to make sure the maximum impact of the project is gained (high level project plan with milestones and timelines)
Can (should) request funds for activities
PtoI must be acceptable for grant to start
Your IMPACT aim
Your IMPACT definition
What you will do to attempt to reach that aim

6. Common pitfall #1 Academics listed in the Impact Summary
The groups / people must be non-academic
Pathways to impact
Academics can be discussed here BUT only if your interaction with them is a necessary step to lead to the impact
Academic beneficiaries (CfS)
This is where you put academics (especially other disciplines) that could benefit
Other areas of the CfS explain how you could link with these other academics
e.g. follow on piece of research that builds on your fundamental findings; Pathways would need to explain how you would build this consortia / collaboration.

7. Common pitfall #2 Mixing text between the Summary and the Pathways
Impact Summary
People / groups
Benefits
NO ACTIVITES
Pathways to impact
Activities that aim to deliver the Impact Summary
DON’T REPEAT THE SUMMARY

8. Aims and actions Draft the Impact Summary before the Pathways
Draft the Impact Summary early
All the research councils recommend this!
e.g. MRC state that it should help you to formulate the research plan
How can you decide what actions you should take without a destination in mind?
Would you write the methodology / work packages before you decide on the research aims / questions / objectives?

9. Suggested approach Think about the ‘who benefits?’ question first
Take a look at resources
As soon as you have one or two ideas
Speak to people in those groups
Get to know them; ‘stakeholder analysis’ is posh phrase
Test out your research and impact ideas on them
They could suggest others who would benefit more
They could suggest other benefits for them
They could become partners in the project
If not interested, they may suggest other research questions of more interest to them
Based on the responses from potentially interested people you may want to refine your project’s aims.

10. Take a look at this blog defining co-production and other approaches
Draft Research Objectives
What impact aims flow from the objectives?
Discuss this with those who could benefit?
Ready to draft the Work Packages / Pathways?
Take a look at this blog defining co-production and other approaches

11. Tips 2
Now design a pathway / plan that engages with more of those people and generates information / evidence that the benefits were realised
Ask for resources (training / expertise /etc) to execute that plan
Ask the representative people from those groups to proof-read the draft plan
They may suggest ways they could help and other activities / contacts that may be useful

12. Common pitfall #3 Lack of clarity of the Impact Aims
Often see phrases such as
The beneficiary X ‘will gain a greater understanding of’
Do we know what their level of understanding is currently?
What increase in this understanding is likely?
Large groupings e.g. policymakers and even worse public
Can a small group of researchers really influence / engage with huge groups?
With policymakers; can indicate that the author doesn’t really know the policy environment that the research could change

13. Common pitfall #4 Unexpected or missing beneficiaries
Reviewers are asked to comment on
How complete and realistic are the impacts identified for this work?
Often in research, which aims to eventually deliver patient benefit, many of the people / organisations / companies in the route to that ultimate benefit are not mentioned.
Often grant authors think too long term
Don’t forget about the possible tangential benefits
e.g. applying methods in very different areas

14. From 1st April 2015
All Research Councils following the same policy re impact:
“A clearly thought through and acceptable Pathways to Impact statement is an essential component of research proposals and a condition of funding. Grants will not be allowed to start until a clearly thought through and acceptable Pathways to Impact statement is received.”

15. What’s acceptable? Project specific NOT generalised Outcome driven
Identifies and engages users at appropriate stages
Demonstrates clear understanding of user needs and how research meets them
Evidence of existing engagement
Includes timing, personnel, budget, deliverables and feasibility of suggested activities
Reviewers asked to assess if you have fully identified all of the potential impacts of your work

16. Reviewer form; impact
Please comment on the pathway to impact identified for the work particularly:
How complete and realistic are the impacts identified for this work;
The effectiveness of the activities identified to help realise these impacts, including the resources requested for this purpose;
The relevance and appropriateness of any beneficiaries or collaborators

17. Example reviewer comments
The stakeholder analysis appears to be very thorough.
The pathways need to give more thought to how
policy will be influenced.
This pathways would benefit from
more thought in terms of the likely
scale of the impact.
The research results are more broadly
applicable than described in the proposal and therefore
the impact value would be bigger than estimated
Example reviewer comments
The research aims to contribute to a reduction of reoffending rates –
it is unclear how this will be assessed.
the effectiveness of the planned impact activities is excellent,
the resources requested are justified and the beneficiaries and
collaborators are highly appropriate.
It isn’t clear what will be done post the
grant period to help the take-up of this work.

18. Elements of a good impact plan
Clear line of sight to the goals
Tailor made
Credible but flexible (stakeholder needs change)
Responsibilities assigned
Demand is obvious
Uses external expertise (when appropriate)
Sensitivities have been considered
Thinks longer term than just funded period
Has evidence collection built in

19. Common pitfall #5 No logical way of engaging / influencing one or more groups mentioned in the Summary
Reviewers are looking to see how and when you will engage / influence those mentioned in the Summary
E.g. often a lot of public engagement described but no clarity on why that will help to deliver the impact

20. Common pitfall #6 The Pathways doesn’t have all the elements of a plan
It isn’t clear:
What will be done
When things will be done
Who will do them
How much they will cost
How to judge if they have been successful
Some draft pathways also just expand on the aims

21. Common pitfall #7 Claims without evidence
‘using the PI’s extensive networks in this area’
Has this extensive network been demonstrated somehow in the text?
‘this research is important for ….’
Is this confirmed in a letter of support or via any prior engagement with this group?

22. Common pitfall #8 Copying another grant’s pathways
If you are looking to influence / engage with very similar people groups this may be okay
Reviewers can get bored seeing the same suggestions for activities:
Website, event, briefing document, etc

23. How to stand out
The Objectives, Lay Summary, Impact Summary and the opening paras of the proposed research provide a tight, integrated, exciting vision
That clearly answers:
Why this research?
Why now?
The Work Packages and Pathways clearly describe how this vision will be achieved

24. How to stand out
Strong evidence of prior engagement with those in the Impact Summary
Previous impact track record
Demonstrate a clear and detailed understanding of the different contexts of those who could benefit
You need to show you have researched them in developing the grant (often called stakeholder analysis)

25. Impact ideas REF2014, 6,975 impact case studies submitted
6,637 are available online (searchable database)
Take a look at those from your area of research
Look at the results from the submitting institution and UoA to work out which were highly rated
Impact Summaries of funded research are all available at

26. Additional support
Impact toolkit; a structured process to help you to develop impact sections; you need to engage with this early
Impact Resources; collection of advice, blogs, etc
Bespoke support for implementing impact plans (post funding award)
Specific to project and people involved
Want to know more or

27. Charity funders They all have a mission or purpose
You need to show how your research will contribute to that mission
Take a look at this Cancer Research blog. It states CRUK’s aim ‘3 in 4 people will survive cancer by 2034’ and therefore the £380m spent on research must show that it is helping to achieve that aim.