1. Walking the tightrope: Pursuing real-world impacts from research in an academic environment David Pannell Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy School of Agricultural and Resource Economics For this PPT see www.davidpannell.net under “Talks”

2. Balancing act Real-world impact Academic impact

3. What matters? Academic impact  Sophistication  Originality/innovation  Citations  Academic reputation  Evidence/rigour Real-world impact  Simplicity  Usefulness/relevance  Opinions of trusted others  Trust, credibility, relationships  Clarity, persuasiveness

4. Academic impact  ERA  Assessed by established senior academics  Usually value rigour over relevance  Usually uni-disciplinary  Journal quality (A*, A, B, C)  Citations  Academic reputation

5. Real-world impact  Growing interest  Perception: we need to do better at convincing government about benefits of research  ARC discussing how to include real-world impact in ERA  UK’s Research Excellence Framework: 20% of funding based on “impact” from 2014.

6. Trial by universities, 2012  Group of Eight (Go8) and Aust Technology Network of Universities (ATN)  Each university submitted cherry-picked case studies (165 submissions)  Evaluated by people from industry & government  24 ‘best’ selected

7. Example – research project

8. 2000: Salinity was a hot topic

9. $1.4 billion of public funding

10. I was shocked  Poor design of the program  Program developers seemed to have been unaware of crucial areas of salinity research and their implications  No chance of any significant benefits

11. My response  Media  Discussion papers  Presentations  Submissions

12. Tried to help them  Developed INFFER (Investment Framework for Environmental Resources)  A tool for integrating the science with other info  Develop logical, evidence-based environmental projects  Assess value for money  Prioritise projects

13. Strategy  Extensive input by users  Make tools as simple as possible  Provide training and help desk for users  Clear documentation aimed at non-experts  Public critiques of existing approaches  Attempt to influence gov’t agencies to change the signals

14. Regional NRM application

15. International application

17. Policy impacts  Senate inquiry (2006)  Recommended use of INFFER  NRM Ministerial Council (2007)  Endorsed new set of principles for investment in salinity  Victorian Government, Biodiversity White Paper  “INFFER will be utilised for the next five years”.  Caring for our Country  Influenced design of project template

18. Example – blog

19. “Pannell Discussions”  Started in 2004  Theme: environmental economics, agricultural economics, policy, etc.  250 posts so far  Each is a mini-discussion paper (500-1000 words)  Often references my own research  About one every two weeks

21. “Pannell Discussions”  Subscribers receive notification of new posts  640 subscribers  New posts are tweeted (130 followers)  Popular posts get about 1000 readers

22. Real-world impacts  Less obvious than for INFFER  Readers have a better understanding of economics than they would have  Some reduction in confusion, misconceptions, prejudices  Greater awareness of specific tools & concepts  Increased profile for myself and UWA in the community

23. Costs?  It takes time  INFFER: lots!  Pannell Discussions: about 1 hour per week  Some academics might not consider these endeavours to be very academically respectable  Some aspects are difficult, stressful, frustrating  Is it worth it?  Real world – definitely yes  Academically – yes, but …

24. Academic benefits (sample of 1!)  Journal papers generated  Directly part of the INFFER work: 17  Related/stimulated by: 16  But, different sorts of papers  Responding to identified real-world needs  Can be out of left field relative to the existing lit  More inter-disciplinary papers  More synthesis/commentary type of papers  Mostly, it’s not the type of research that gets into the most prestigious disciplinary journals

25. Academic benefits  Citations  These papers get relatively well cited  One INFFER-related paper is the most cited paper over the last 8 years in Land Economics (one of the leading international journals in my field)

26. Academic benefits  Prizes/awards  INFFER  Eureka Prize for Interdisciplinary Research  AARES Quality of Research Discovery Award  Pannell Discussions  AARES Quality of Research Communication Award  General  Perhaps made some contribution to my Federation Fellowship

27. Academic benefits  Opportunities generated  Invited onto steering committee of major EU project, thanks to blog  Reputation for useful research  easier to get funding (unsolicited approaches offering $)

28. Would I recommend it?  Not for everyone  Need to  Get a buzz out of making a difference  Have strong communication skills  Enjoy the various challenges  Be prepared/able to make the time  Not be too obsessed with academic prestige  If project pushes for change, need to  Enjoy learning about how things work in the real world  Be resilient and persistent

29. Resilience/persistence needed  People will suspect your motives  People with a vested interest in the status quo will attack you  People will misunderstand, misinterpret, and totally misrepresent what you are saying  Nobody reads more than a page  Nobody knows about your discipline  Everybody is too rushed to do things properly

30. Resilience/persistence needed  Everybody thinks they are doing a good job, even if they clearly aren’t  People think evidence and analysis is optional  It reduces their flexibility for decision making  People will pursue objectives you think are inappropriate  Significant change takes years  You have to repeat yourself ad nauseam

31. Resilience/persistence needed  You’ll see the same mistakes made repeatedly  If you succeed, it could be more because of relationships and trust than the quality of your evidence or logic  Even if you convince some people in the system of your position, people higher up who know absolutely nothing about it will over-rule them  The person you’ve been cultivating will change jobs

32. Implications for universities  Don’t expect everyone to do it  Some high achievers for real-world impact might not be academic high achievers  Perhaps an initiative to free up some time for selected people  Don’t set rigid requirements for “quality” based only on academic criteria

33. Implications for disciplines  Broaden perspective on what constitutes quality  Broaden who judges  Avoid rigour-mortis  Be open to multi-disciplinary work

34. Resources  Pannell, D.J. and Roberts, A.M. (2009). Conducting and delivering integrated research to influence land-use policy: salinity policy in Australia, Environmental Science and Policy 12(8), 1088-1099.  http://dpannell.fnas.uwa.edu.au/dp0803.htm http://dpannell.fnas.uwa.edu.au/dp0803.htm  Pannell, D.J. (2004). Effectively communicating economics to policy makers. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 48(3), 535-555.  http://dpannell.fnas.uwa.edu.au/j78ajare.pdf http://dpannell.fnas.uwa.edu.au/j78ajare.pdf

35. Resources  Weible et al. (2012). “Understanding and influencing the policy process”, Policy Science 45, 1-12.  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11077-011- 9143-5 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11077-011- 9143-5

36. Pannell Discussions (Blog posts)  150 – Why don’t environmental managers use decision theory?  http://www.pannelldiscussions.net/2009/04/150-why- dont-environmental-managers-use-decision-theory/ http://www.pannelldiscussions.net/2009/04/150-why- dont-environmental-managers-use-decision-theory/  136 – Engaging with policy: tips for researchers  http://www.pannelldiscussions.net/2008/09/136- engaging-with-policy-tips-for-researchers/ http://www.pannelldiscussions.net/2008/09/136- engaging-with-policy-tips-for-researchers/

37. Resources  A relevant blog post by ecologist Brian McGill on “What it takes to do policy-relevant science”  http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/what -it-takes-to-do-policy-relevant-science/ http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/what -it-takes-to-do-policy-relevant-science/  Video: Ben Martin (U Sussex) “Science Policy Research - Can Research Influence Policy? How? And Does It Make for Better Policy?”  http://upload.sms.csx.cam.ac.uk/media/747324 http://upload.sms.csx.cam.ac.uk/media/747324

38. For this PPT see www.davidpannell.net under “Talks”

39. Other needs (for policy impact)  Need some demand pull  Seek a product champion  Understand potential users  Understand the chain from research to impact for your issue

40. A chain from research to impact: Information for policy  Research  Something useful is learned (or isn’t)  New information influences policy (or doesn’t)  Policy change is implemented (or isn’t)  If policy aims to change behaviour, people respond as intended (or don’t)  Changes (relative to no research) result – social, environmental or economic benefits (or not)

41. Other needs (for policy impact)  Need “absorptive capacity” in the organisation  The political circumstances need to be right. You can’t change ideological positions of govt.  Timing. Grasp opportunities.  Good communication  Simplicity, brevity, clarity  Avoid jargon, maths, complex graphs