Ksenia Sawczak considers the effectiveness of this latest exercise in impact assessment, finding it to provide an inadequate account of the impact of Australian research and ultimately a shaky evidence base for the development of future policy.

This report is a ‘snapshot’ of a study commissioned by the Research for Development Impact (RDI) Network, and undertaken by Coffey International Development. The aim is to provide a point-in-time understanding as to how research findings are communicated and taken up in policy and practice, within the Australian-based development sector.

For industries to adopt innovations and for research to have an impact, there must be significant shifts in people’s behaviours, their perceptions, and the ways communities engage with research. These activities are the research focus of the humanities, arts, and social sciences (HASS) disciplines.

To identify factors that predict use of academic research and expertise, regression analyses were performed using The Conversation Australia 2016 Annual Survey data. Different types of engagement actions predicted different types of use. This suggests that to achieve impact through increased engagement, a deeper understanding of different engagement actions is needed.

Background: There is growing recognition amongst health and medical research funders and researchers that translation of research into policy and practice needs to increase and that more transparency is needed on how impacts are realised. Several approaches are advocated for achieving this, including co-production of research or academic-practitioner research.