Integrating Impact Planning into Research Projects: Reflections from the STEPS Centre

www.steps-centre.org

Adrian Ely, Deputy Director and Head of Impact and EngagementNathan Oxley, Communications Officer

STEPS-CDI Seminar, 20th February 2014

The ESRC STEPS Centre ICE Unit

ImpactCommunicationsEngagement

Framing

• The metaphor and idea of impact• A wide range of official definitions,

underpinned by procedures and structures• Freedom of interpretation? Or guessing

game?

Drivers of and responses to the ‘impact agenda’

• Political justification• Value for money• Cynicism in response to ‘audit culture’• Optimism• Reflexive critique

Impact methods

• Experimental methods• Theory of change• Network mapping• Participatory methods

PIPA and how we use it

Douthwaite, B. et al. (2007). "Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis: A Practical Application of Program Theory in Research-for-Development." Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 22(2): 127-159.

STEPS ‘scaled-down’ version of PIPAProblem formulation + identification of change required to overcome it

Project outputs – evidence, publications, events etcPr

ojec

t log

ic a

s la

idO

ut in

con

cept

not

ePI

PA w

orks

hop Project goal – vision for impact

‘Now’ network map – helps to identify actors, narratives,

opportunities Strategies for comms and engagement

At o

r sho

rtly

After

wor

ksho

p

Impact narrative- What the project hopes to achieve, when, how and with whom

PIPA – lessons and reflections

• Team-building and reflexive learning amongst project teams and stakeholders

• Using PIPA iteratively to support research, enhance impact and inform ex-post evaluation

• Aids portfolio-based impact work as in STEPS

PIPA – future use and developments

• Other projects have also started using the ‘now network map’ component of PIPA

• How would we have done it differently?

• Linking participatory theories of change to systematic, robust, proportionate ex-post work

• Further resources can be found at http://pipamethodology.pbworks.com