This workshop presentation to the Canadian Knowledge Mobilization Forum (2016) provided an overview of research impact evaluation, from planning, to implementing, to understanding and using the results. 

1. Evaluating research impact:
From a specific case to general guidelines
Anne Bergen, PhD and Elizabeth Shantz, MSc

2. Attribution
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
International License.
You are free:
• to Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
• to Remix — Remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
Under the following conditions:
• Attribution — Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license,
and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any
way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
• Share Alike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your
contributions under the same license as the original.
Attribute this work as:
Bergen, A., and Shantz, E. (2016). Evaluating research impact: From a specific case to
general guidelines. Workshop presentation to the Canadian Knowledge
Mobilization Forum. Toronto, ON.
2

3. About Us
• Knowledge to Action Consulting Inc. offers
services in evaluation, applied research, and
knowledge mobilization. We like helping
people collect meaningful data, telling stories
about research, and building relationships.

4. Canada’s leading water
research design and
management organization
Blue Cities Energy and
Resources
Small and
Aboriginal
Communities
Agriculture and
Water

5. Our Approach
1. Create Opportunities
2. Extract Knowledge, Provide Insight
3. Accelerate Success

6. get in touch
Anne Bergen, PhD
anne@knowledgetoaction.ca
@anne_bergen
Elizabeth Shantz, MSc
eshantz@cwn-rce.ca
@elizabethshantz

7. Why research
impact evaluation?

8. Research à Impact?
What kind of impact?
For whom?
Under what conditions?
When?
Based on what evidence?

9. What are your
evaluation goals?

10. Evaluation Goals
•What aspects of your research or
KT do you want to evaluate?
•What are you going to do with
the resulting information?

11. Evaluation Continuum
How will you use the evaluation results?
–What?
–So What?
–Now What?
Outputs Engagement Uptake Use Impact Causal
Attributions

12. CWN
Evaluation
Goals
Evaluate
• Identify
characteristics
of an impactful
research project
Compare
• Compare different
styles of research
programs
Query
• Develop an
accessible
database for easy
querying
Communicate
• Identify and tell
our stories of
success to inform
communications

13. key questions for research impact
(KTE) evaluation
1. What research knowledge was transferred?
2. To whom was research knowledge
transferred?
3. By whom was research knowledge
transferred?
4. How was research knowledge transferred?
5. With what effect was research knowledge
transferred?
Adapted from: Lavis, J. N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J. M., McLeod, C. B., & Abelson, J. (2003).
How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers?
Milbank Quarterly, 81(2), 221-248.

14. CWN Evaluation Questions
1. What research knowledge was transferred?
2. To whom was research knowledge
transferred?
3. By whom was research knowledge
transferred?
4. How was research knowledge transferred?
5. With what effect was research knowledge
transferred?

15. What is your
evaluation context?

16. More impact.
Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower
Less control. Slower process.
Adapted from Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Public Participation and the IAP2 Spectrum of
Public Participation
How engaged are your stakeholders in your
research & KTE activities?

17. Research Funding Organization
Program of Research
A
Project
A1
Product
A1a
Product
A1b
Project
A2
Product
A2a
Product
A2b
Product
A2c
Project
A3
Product
A3a
Product
A3b
Program of
Research B
Project
B1
Product
B1a
Product
B1b
Project
B2
Product
B2a
Product
B2b

18. Research Funding Organization
Program of Research
A
Project
A1
Product
A1a
Product
A1b
Project
A2
Product
A2a
Product
A2b
Product
A2c
Project
A3
Product
A3a
Product
A3b
Program of
Research B
Project
B1
Product
B1a
Product
B1b
Project
B2
Product
B2a
Product
B2b

19. Context
Research Funding Organization
Program of Research
A
Project
A1
Product
A1a
Product
A1b
Project
A2
Product
A2a
Product
A2b
Product
A2c
Project
A3
Product
A3a
Product
A3b
Program of
Research B
Project
B1
Product
B1a
Product
B1b
Project
B2
Product
B2a
Product
B2b

20. Canadian Water Network
Program of Research
A
Project
A1
Product A1a Product A1b
Project
A2
Product A2a Product A2b Product A2c
Project
A3
Product A3a Product A3b
Program of
Research B
Project
B1
Product B1a Product B1b
Project
B2
Product B2a Product B2b

21. Evaluation Context (macro & micro)
• Micro - (time, money, resources, intended
use, intended users, reporting requirements,
etc…)
• Macro – (culture, leadership, evaluation,
external systems, political climate, etc….)

22. What is your logic
model for research
impact?
(logical links between activities,
outputs, & desired outcomes)

23. Logic Model for Research Impact
Stakeholders/ end users
• Who is/ are the audience(s)/target(s) of
change of your KTE activities?
Activities & outputs
• What are your research and KT activities that
might impact your stakeholders? (what are
you creating in person/ online/ on paper)

24. Logic Model for Research Impact
Outcomes & impacts
• What are the expected outcomes, and impacts of
your research and KT activities? What are the
changes in people’s knowledge, attitudes, skills,
and actions? What are the community and
systems level impacts?
Assumptions
• What are the assumptions between activities &
outcomes? What context is necessary for the KTE
activities to have impact?

25. CWN logic model
Adapted from the University of Wisconsin-Extension evaluation logic model template
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evallogicmodel.html

26. What approach to
evaluation will you
take?

27. What Kind of Evaluation?
Evaluation research
vs.
evaluation Research
how used?
to be published?
funded?
practical & theoretical considerations

28. Who are your
end users/
targets of change?

29. End users of research/
targets of change
q patients
q family and caregivers
q researchers
q practitioners
q general public
q policymakers
q subsets of the general public (e.g., youth)
q

30. What measures and
indicators will you
use?
(metrics to stories)

31. Outputs vs. Outcomes
Outputs Engagement Uptake Use Impact
Causal
Attributions
measurement time & complexity

32. Indicators for:
• Number/type of research outputs/ KT products
• Ease of use/ user experience
• Timing/ relevance (meets end user needs)
• Awareness/ attitudes/ beliefs/ knowledge
• Self-reported intentions/ behaviour
• Networks/ relationships/ collaborations
• Systems/ policies/ organizational culture

33. Social Process, Social Impact
• Quality & quantity of relationships
• 1:1 relationships; organizational relationships
• Meetings
• Requests & referrals
• Co-produced products
• Social network analysis
• .

34. Phase 1:
Document
Analysis
Identify Projects
• Parameters for inclusion
Collect Information
• Reporting to CWN; other
outputs
Choose Indicators
• Inputs, outputs, outcomes,
impacts
Analyze Reports
• Create searchable databaseof
results
76
Projects
8
Months
CWN Impact Evaluation

35. Phase 2:
Researcher
Interviews
56
Projects
9
Months
Phase1
Information
Researcher
Interviews
Verify key outputs
Update outcomes
Nominate end users
CWN Impact Evaluation

36. Phase 3:
End User
Interviews
78
Interviews
5
Months
Short and medium term
outcomes
Theory of attribution
Long term impacts
Forward tracking impacts
CWN Impact Evaluation

37. Success Stories
Providing landowners with cost-
and space-saving rural
wastewater treatment
CWN Impact Evaluation
Reducing arsenic contamination
from a nearby coal mine

38. Lessons Learned
• Choose indicators wisely
–Partner metrics
• Good question framing
–In interviews
–In project reporting
• Get the right people involved
–Leverage your connections
–Flexible evaluation expertise
• Persistence!
CWN Impact Evaluation

39. Promising Practices
• Body of work of prominent researchers
• Methods, models and technologies
• Emerging areas of research
• Forward tracking over time
CWN Impact Evaluation

40. Promising practices and tensions
• partner-level inquiry
• forward and backward tracking
• contribution analysis
• success stories vs. quantified impact
• timing of impact

41. A Few Resources
Better Evaluation (2016). [Website]. http://betterevaluation.org/An international
collaboration to improve evaluation practice and theory by sharing and
generating information about options (methods or processes) and approaches.
Economic and Social Research Council (2011). Branching Out: New Directions in
Impact Evaluation from the ESRC’s Evaluation Committee. Appendix 1 –
ConceptualFramework for Impact Evaluation.. Retrieved from:
http://www.esrc.ac.uk/files/research/evaluation-and-impact/branching-out-new-
directions-in-impact-evaluation-from-the-esrc-s-evaluation-committee/
Morton (2015) Progressing research impact assessment: A ‘contributions’ approach
Research Evaluation (2015) 24 (4): 405-419
http://rev.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/4/405
NationalCollaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (2012). Evaluating knowledge
translation interventions: A systematic review. Hamilton, ON: McMaster
University. Retrieved from http://www.nccmt.ca/resources/search/114.