The third masterclass in the Impact of Research masterclass series was held on 3 June 2021 by Margo Brouns, professor of Strengthening Applied Research (Versterking Praktijkgericht Onderzoek) at Fontys University of Applied Sciences. Drawing on her years of experience at research universities, universities of applied sciences and public institutions, Brouns has a broad perspective on higher education and research.
Brouns is still seeking (to formulate) a vision on impact or continuous effects, she says at the start of her masterclass, hence the title Impact: a search for added value. She views the discussion on ‘valuable’ knowledge – “the truth is something we construct together” – and the unnecessarily defensive position that institutes of higher education take in this regard through a sociological lens.
Applied research is not specific to universities of applied sciences; research universities also carry out this type of research. What sets research at universities of applied sciences apart, however, is the intensive relationship with the professional field, says Brouns; the stakeholders speak each other’s language. That context could be better used in all phases of research, the Brouns believes, and therefore prefers to speak of practice-based research.
Although this is a nuanced difference, it is an important one, says Brouns. In practice-based research, there is continuous interaction in the triple helix. Because of the professional practice involved, there is interaction and influence not only at the beginning and at the end of the research, but also throughout the research process, with all sources of knowledge – in principle – being equivalent, whether it is a researcher, a commissioning authority or a client. Incorporating and enriching that practical knowledge should be characteristic of research at universities of applied sciences, Brouns believes.
Connectedness between researcher and practice is an integral part of this, she says. Not everyone shares this view, she says, as she often hears that connectedness leads to influence – but that is precisely the point, she argues. Practice-based research seeks precisely that influence. Because of the myriad connections with the professional field, with students, politics and with other parties, researchers have to account for those relationships, which then compels them to make their own judgements. So rather than focusing on independence, the idea is to foster multiple interdependencies.
And what principles or values underpin that? First, it should concern real-life research, and by that Brouns means that the research question should be based in real-life practice. Credibility of outcomes is a key requirement for impact. Imitability is also an important principle for good research. When it comes to complex social issues, there are really no objective truths. Good research is about ‘credibility’. Without credibility, no one follows up on the research insights, which makes the value of the research unclear. As a final point, she mentions the researcher’s capacity for judgement – not only regarding the research and the process, but also his or her skills and reflective capacity. The researcher must account for the research process and the influences that lead to particular results. This is not, however, an argument for allowing all kinds of (commercial or political) interests.
An important aspect of Brouns’ vision on impact is that a change process must be visible. Impact is more than just a knowledge process that results in knowledge products (such as an article or a report). It should truly constitute a change in practice as well. It is about the production of new knowledge, which then finds its way into practice.
Impact can be thought of as circles in the water, says Brouns. The further away the circle, the less clear the causal relationship between research and impact. Traces of impact can be found, for example, in changes of action and insight among those directly involved, and one’s network, and funding is also an impact trace. Impact is something you do, something you are constantly working on in the research process, as masterclass participants also concur. It is not a process where you can add up the parts afterwards.
We need to look at impact differently, Brouns believes, and that also requires a different language. Currently, the language of academic discourse is mainly used, but this is not adequate for the richness of research at universities of applied sciences. This applies to all kinds of areas, Brouns argues: at the level of research, but also at higher education institutions. Therein lies a mission for SIA.
Esther Tielen
