Engagement and Impact is one of the three elements of the Research Excellence Framework, and is assessed through Impact Case Studies (ICS). Not everyone has to write an ICS – as an institution, we have to submit around 50, spread across subject areas. Previously, this element was only “impact”… so what does the inclusion of “engagement” mean?

For the purposes of the REF, engagement is defined as an interaction between the HEI and relevant individuals, groups, communities, organisations, the public, commercial partners, or policy makers, that is purposeful, responsible, and context appropriate.

How is engagement considered?

There is no separate consideration of engagement in the REF. Where engagement has been a part of the process leading to impact, authors are encouraged to address this in their ICS – but this is not an essential element. Discussion of engagement in an ICS can either be in the ‘Underpinning Research’ or the ‘Details of the Impact’ section, depending on the role that engagement played in the process.

Examples of engagement as considered by REF include reciprocal flows of knowledge and skills, whether planned or spontaneous, and take account of varied disciplinary practices.

REF states that the research underpinning a case study must have made a distinct and material contribution to the reported impact. Engagement can often be part of the underpinning research, particularly in the case of co-produced and participatory research. Describing engagement activities can add weight to the narrative by enhancing the distinct and material contribution of the research. Engagement may have taken place before, during or after the research.

‘Underpinned by’ means that the research made a distinct and material contribution to the impact taking place, such that the impact would not have occurred or would have been significantly reduced without the contribution of that research.

Where engagement is considered to be (part of) a pathway to impact, then the engagement strategy, specific activities and responsible practices may be addressed, in terms of how they have led to the claimed impact.

What does this mean for ICS authors?

In terms of working towards impact, you don’t need to change what you’re doing. ICS will still be assessed based on Reach and Significance. However, you might want to take some time to think about how you write about engagement. Different types of engagement have always been an important part of many impact pathways, and it has always been important that any engagement is carried out in a way that is appropriate and ethical. Most cases will already involve some form of engagement, whether that’s with community groups, policymakers or industry partners. You’ve always been able to include information about this in a REF ICS – the change is that there will be guidance for doing so for REF 2029.

Some impact can occur without engagement, which is mostly likely in the case of incidental impact – impact which has happened without a direct interaction between researcher and research user, perhaps through someone not directly connected to your research coming across an output. Where this is the case, you do not need to plan engagement to tick a box. However, it has always been the case that it may be beneficial for the research users or for your own future projects to engage where appropriate. Do this with beneficiaries and your research in mind, not for the sake of an ICS.

If you have any questions about impact and engagement, you can contact your faculty impact lead, or email impact@port.ac.uk to get in touch with the central Impact Team.