1

Hello, my name is Esther and I am … the odd one out.

First of all: I am not a postdoc, not even a doc and I have no research experience (as you

might define it).

Second (and for some maybe worse): I work at the dreaded rectorate as a research

policy advisor – an often faceless job balancing the hopes and dreams of many masters

and mistresses.

But you might also consider both issues as my strengths:

I am part of what they call ‘the public’. Moreover, my specific expertise as a policy

advisor lies in communication, information management and more recently, societal

impact.

2

So not only can you test out your exploits on me, I am a great go-between or broker and

even a partner. You can get policy-based (dare I say evidence-based) advice from me or I

can point you in the right direction by providing tools and examples so you can develop

your own special brand of impact.

So not only can you test out your exploits on me, I am a great go-between or broker and

even a partner. You can get policy-based (dare I say evidence-based) advice from me or I

can point you in the right direction by providing tools and examples so you can develop

your own special brand of impact.

3

And that is also why I am here now.

To give you an insight of what is happening in academia and policy when it comes to

societal impact, and where Ghent University is at (and wants to be) when it comes to

creating an environment for such efforts.

4

let’s just say that there’s a whole battery of words and phrases for what we are

discussing – knowledge exchange or mobilisation, public service, outreach, societal value

creation, impact

let me start with quickly contextualizing this concept:

Why should you bother with this societal impact malarkey?

5

I have found that it often makes for better science and better researchers. Of course

there is such a thing as ‘accountability’ (the public is paying so they have a right to your

science) but I am not a big fan of this approach. It works so much better if you look at it

in an authentic, almost intrinsic way. It really helps if you see the benefits and like doing

it.

6

All across the western world policy makers are trying to force this shift through research

evaluation and funding: from the Broader Impacts program of the NSF to the dreaded

REF and the Societal Challenges Pillar of Horizon 2020. Even our own FWO has

introduced an impact paragraph.

But do not shift too far. Do not be fooled into thinking that societal impact should be the

same as societal relevance. We must find a way to safeguard fundamental research too.

7

If you take back one thing from my talk is that creating an impact is an iterative process.

Do not be overly focused on results and output. There’s more to impact than

dissemination or straightforward applications. Sure, they are the proverbial cherry on

the cake but be careful you do not reduce these activities to a mere add-on.

8

Societal impact is achieved by an active (sometimes even proactive) negotiation with

stakeholders outside academia, looking for productive interactions. It means investing in

storytelling and developing a communication strategy that runs throughout your

research. It means trying a lot and learning to get your timing right.

Forget this misconstrued idea of academia as an Ivory Tower but take your place in the

Agora or marketplace that is society.

Make sure you invest in a strong and diverse network.

9

Besides, there is a whole smorgasbord of possibilities to unleash your creativity, fit for

your kind of research. To name but a few:

participatory research such as living labs, surveys and citizen science

Push the boundaries of science communication: lectures, training, blogs, tweets,

documentaries, infographics, podcasts, videos, apps

editing Wikipedia, writing columns, co-creating, changing legislation and creating

models

collaborating with schools and museums, organizing internships, advising policy and

offering your expert opinion.

And many many more…

10

Now what we propose with Ghent University’s plan is trying to take all this context into

account. What we propose is not a big bang but a well-considered array of actions. Let

us lower the threshold to impact by offering concrete tools and support, putting good

practices in the spotlight, and spreading impact literacy. Let us share the responsibility

and start changing the system one small revolution at a time - all the while respecting

the complexity of the pathways to impact, allowing space for the creativity and

individuality of our researchers.

11

A direct consequence of this is our refusal to take this glorious wealth captive by

indicators and checklists, by suggesting a purely quantitative approach – something that

has spread like a plague (albeit often of good intentions) through the Flemish HE and

R&D landscape.

12

But we are not there yet. We still have to conquer some big hurdles.

Besides this worrying urge to reduce everything to spread sheets and boxes to be ticked

– it even seems like we have lost the ability to truly evaluate people and their

accomplishments

the biggest challenge is the lack of appreciation and real incentives. When will outreach

and science communication be found to be an equal partner to research and economic

impact without expecting our researchers to be superhuman, excelling in all aspects of

the academic mission. When will the focus on the individual shift to the team where

people’s talents are put to better use?

13

14