Simply impact. Nothing special, but important

Renowned cellist Pieter Wispelwey records Bach’s Cello Suites in 2012. He has tuned the A string of his cello unusually low, at 392 Hz. Not at the more usual 440 Hz or 415 Hz. He does this after talking to two musicologists who know all about Bach and authentic performance practices. They discuss that the cello suites are dance music and what that means for its performance. They discuss which instrument was available at the time of the composition, how that instrument would have been tuned and how it would have sounded. This can be seen in the documentary released with the CD. It seems as if the three men are playing the same cello together when they discuss what tempi are possible if the instrument is tuned to 392 Hz. A great example of a collaboration between researchers and a musician and of the result of that collaboration: a different performance practice. Simply, impact.

Normal and extraordinary impact

And that is exactly what Gunnar Sivertsen and Ingeborg Meijer call it in their article “Normal versus extraordinary societal impact: how to understand, evaluate, and improve research activities in their relations to society?”: ordinary impact. That is the result of all kinds of interactions, sometimes formalised but often informal, between research and society. They contrast that with extraordinary impact. Cases where interactions between research and society have unexpected and widespread consequences. These are often well-known examples that carry extra weight. Sometimes the focus is perhaps too much on such extraordinary examples they argue. And that ignores everyday research practice, certainly at universities of applied sciences, and the impact that practice leads to. That distinction between ordinary and extraordinary impact is what this blog post is about, and why that distinction is useful and important.

In their paper, Sivertsen and Meijer describe a collaborative project between Syrian and Norwegian archaeologists. These are investigating the ancient Roman city of Palmyra in Syria. A unique site and UNESCO heritage since 1980. So far, nothing out of the ordinary; archaeologists map out ancient cities and historical sites in so many places. That changes after the destruction of the site in 2015. Some parts have been razed to the ground. What remains are the data collected by the archaeologists. Their research suddenly became hugely important. Not much later, the archaeologists bring the case in to evaluate the social impact of their research. The impact is deemed extraordinary. But it should be clear: the archaeologists would have preferred not to experience and bring in this example of extraordinary impact at all. They would have preferred to continue researching with their colleagues in Syria.

Relationships and interactions

Sivertsen and Meijer also describe another example of research on ancient cities and make the point that research is a collective and social enterprise. In 1812, Swiss researcher Johann Ludwig Burckhardt arrived at the city of Petra in Jordan. Petra is partly carved into rock and has been inhabited for thousands of years. The historical importance of this city has long been known in the region. Excavations are taking place and the site is protected. While the “discovery of Petra” is attributed to Burckhardt, Burckhardt is building on work already done. And still ongoing, by the way, over 200 years later.

The example of the cello suites is another illustration of that collective and social enterprise, but on a somewhat more modest scale. The two musicologists assisting Pieter Wispelwey, Laurence Dreyfuss and John Butt, are by no means ivory-tower scholars. Not only do they study baroque music, they perform it themselves. They are part of a larger community of musicians and conductors, and they have known each other since before the collaboration captured in the documentary. The musicologists know performance practice and what questions are relevant.

Another point Sivertsen and Meijer make is that research and impact are processes. Those processes involve interactions, iterations, interpretations and co-creation. About collaboration of different types of partners and over time. They contrast that with what is sometimes called the “linear model”, which in a nutshell boils down to: researchers do excellent research and that leads through a clear path to further use and change. Nothing against excellent research and clear steps, but this is usually not how research and impact go in practice. Just look at the documentary and the discussion about tempos. It looks like Laurence Dreyfuss and John Butt are testing whether their hypothesis is correct and it is almost as if new research questions are emerging.

Individual and organisational level

Sivertsen and Meijer also come up with examples from the medical field. They use these to illustrate that impact is not purely, or not at all, the responsibility of individual researchers. Impact is also or precisely the responsibility of the organisation, they argue. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is one such example of organisational assurance. HTA is the systematic assessment of new technologies and interventions for use in healthcare. The assessment is multidisciplinary and covers direct and indirect impacts. Briefly, it aims to prevent the application of new technologies or interventions from leading to adverse effects that were preventable. This is not the responsibility or task of an individual researcher or lecturer, it is a collective task and responsibility. The other example cited by Sivertsen and Meijer illustrates how things can go wrong if there is no care and attention to further consequences. It is an example of negative impact. In the early 1910s, Paolo Macchiarini, a famous surgeon and researcher, works at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute. He develops an artificial windpipe and implants it in patients. The innovation turns out not to work well and the implantation unfortunately leads to the death of some patients. The Karolinska Institute initially washes its hands of the matter and refers to Macchiarini’s individual responsibility. External investigations reveal a culture of silence at the institute, “group think” and little respect for rules. This says more about the organisation as a whole than about the individual researcher and practitioner. It is an example of what happens when too little attention is paid at the organisational level to application in practice.

Practices and goals of interaction

A final point that Sivertsen and Meijer make is that the way researchers and social partners interact depends on the context and discipline. Sometimes there are very appropriate ways and practices, think for instance of Health Technology Assessment. Or the practice of archaeological excavations, where national authorities play a role and the excavation is often done in collaboration with local organisations. This can lead, for example, to on-site exhibitions of artefacts, as archaeologist Corinne Hofman did in Dominica. Or to music practice, where researchers are sometimes performers themselves. Another example is musicologist Albert Recasens. He set up an orchestra and a record label to bring forgotten Spanish music from the 17th century to attention. And he works with researchers to search for lost scores.

Understanding, evaluating and contributing to impact

With the article, Sivertsen and Meijer aim to contribute to good impact practice. And then it is about the policy of the college and the funder. About the day-to-day practice of a professorship. And about moments when research is evaluated. They argue that a focus on extraordinary impact obscures attention to how research and impact usually happens. And the same is true if a linear understanding of impact is maintained, where the idea is that impact comes directly from an single isolated project. This does not do justice to the importance of interactions over time and with different partners. Or if the focus is too much on individuals, and not on the bigger picture, such as the research group, centre of expertise or the university of applied sciences. Or if the importance of specific forms of collaboration and impact is ignored. The examples mentioned, health technology assessment; orchestras, concerts and CDs; and excavations and exhibitions, fit specific disciplines. Their importance for impact should not be neglected.

Working on impact is simply the day-to-day business. Making that clear is what Sivertsen and Meijer are all about. Applying this insight further is now up to the reader of this blog post. Simply impact.

Finally

This is the first of several contributions Leonie van Drooge is writing for this website. She has been involved in research impact and evaluation for some 20 years. First in practice as an impact consultant (transfer point consultant it was called then). Later as senior researcher and project manager at the Rathenau Institute and the Centre for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University. And now as an independent consultant, under the name LvD Impact & Evaluation.

And for completeness: Leonie van Drooge knows Sivertsen and Meijer as Gunnar and former colleague Ingeborg. She meets them at meetings on research impact and evaluation in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe.

 

References