What do policy means

A major aspect of public policy is law. In a general sense, the law includes specific legislation and more broadly defined provisions of constitutional or international law. There are many ways that the law can influence how survivors of violence against women are treated and the types of services they receive. Likewise, legislation identifies areas in which research grants can be funded and often determines the amount of funding allocated. Thus, it is not surprising that public policy debates occur over proposed legislation and funding.

In this context, advocacy can be defined as attempting to influence public policy through education, lobbying, or political pressure. Just between us: it's complicated. Ask the Editors 'Everyday' vs. What Is 'Semantic Bleaching'? How 'literally' can mean "figuratively".

Literally How to use a word that literally drives some pe Is Singular 'They' a Better Choice? The awkward case of 'his or her'. Take the quiz. Our Favorite New Words How many do you know? All definitions were included from sources that discussed several definitions. Publications were recorded in the reference management software Endnote. Excel spreadsheets were used to record 1 information on the method used in the study; 2 research impact definition s ; 3 source reference s of the definition; and 4 constructs extracted from the research impact definitions.

Results were analysed and synthesised in two ways; first, definitions were ordered into types — an ordering that was based largely on the source cited. Second, underlying features of these definitions, based on keywords and constructs evident in definitions, were identified using an inductive comparative method and then categorised into definition types and domains.

As given in Fig. Supplemental searches, including reference list searches and expert recommendations, yielded a further 20 publications. After duplicates were removed, titles were screened against the inclusion criteria; articles were excluded during abstract screening because they were not on research impact, health or policy and sources were excluded during full-text screening because they did not contain a definition of research impact.

A total of 83 sources were included in this review, including 45 peer-reviewed journal articles, 13 books, 7 conference papers and 18 websites or online reports Additional file 1.

A total of definitions were provided. The remainder provided original i. Several commonalities were evident in the four main types of definitions identified. These were 1 research impact defined as a demonstrable contribution to society and economy definition provided by the RCUK ; 2 research impact defined as an effect, change or benefit to society and economy REF and HEFCE ; 3 bibliometric definitions; and 4 use-based definitions.

The emphasis on contribution input makes this definition neutral with respect to having an expectation of a specific outcome or change. While the RCUK does not explicitly reference policy impacts, others have expanded upon it to encompass research impacts on policy in two slightly different ways; first, is the impact of research to an area policy as in [ 28 ] , i.

Chandler [ 33 ] adds to the core definition that research impact enables the development of new products, services and policies — in other words, research impact can be defined through its capacity to facilitate innovation. This definition broadens the spheres of possible impact to include psychosocial impacts and impacts at numerous organisational and geographical scales.

REF departs substantially from the RCUK definition insofar as it includes within the definition the role of research in the prevention of harms and reducing risks, costs or negative impacts [ 18 ]. Reed [ 12 ] specifies that research evidence can be useful in preventing the adoption of harmful legislation and products.

This is the broadest core definition included within this review with respect to the areas of potential impact that the definition encompasses. National security is a unique feature of the ARC cited definitions. The ARC definition includes policy impacts of research within its core definition and regards a wide range of different types and levels of impact that are left open for further inclusion.

The common unifying elements between the ARC [ 39 ] and the Australian RQF [ 42 ] definitions are 1 a reference to the social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits of research and 2 extension of impact scope beyond academia.

They differed insofar as publications citing the RQF definition of research impact were more heterogeneous, narrative and interpretative than those referring to the ARC.

Policy impacts were explicitly mentioned in all five publications that used the ARC definition. However, only one source that cited the RQF mentioned policy impacts. Bibliometric definitions, some of which arise out of the field of economics, focus on demonstrable and measurable research impacts in the form of quantifiable data. Some authors, such as Tonta et al. However, others are more inclusive and list other forms of quantifiable impacts as part of their definition. This approach considers research impact assessment methods beyond citations by attempting to capture oral communication, but it demands a record of impacts.

The Association of Commonwealth Universities [ 46 ] cites the PPG definition and states that research impact establishes the influence of research knowledge, rather than its consequences.

Similarly, Hannemann-Weber et al. While focussed on bibliometrics, this conceptualisation acknowledges broader social processes that underpin research impact as measured bibliometrically, such as the acceptability and visibility of research, the status reputation of research producers and the actions of researchers in the promotion of research findings. Moed et al. Qin [ 49 ] agrees with these ideas in defining research impact by the extent to which outputs are diffused across disciplinary and geographical boundaries measured by citations , the extent to which these have been adopted measured by intellectual property purchases and licences , and benefits established measured quantitatively and qualitatively.

Harland [ 50 ], citing Korhonen et al. Nightingale and Marshall [ 52 ] expressed the idea that citations exhibit the extent of academic significance, noting, however that this is not the same thing as research impact.

The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [ 53 ] defines citation tracking as one expression of research impact in terms of the impact of ideas and methods within academia. However, the National Health and Medical Research Council definition acknowledges that there are also less easily measurable forms of research impact such as research that improves patient care, guides policymakers to adopt health prevention strategies or translates into systems level change.

Hartwell et al. Cohen et al. For Cohen et al. Many academic articles define research impact by distinguishing between research impact, research use and research outputs.

Unlike the instrumentalist definitions found in the grey literature, these definitions tend to be more theoretical, policy and practice oriented, and focussed on the influence of research findings on the activities and knowledge of researchers and policymakers.

Walter et al. An extended form of this definition is provided by Nutley et al. It identifies the influence of a specific piece of research in making a specific decision or in defining the solution to a specific problem, and represents a widely held view of what research use means. Conceptual use is a much more wide-ranging definition of research use, comprising the complex and often indirect ways in which research can have an impact on the knowledge, understanding and attitudes of policy makers and practitioners.

Meagher et al. Impact, here, is causal but not necessarily linked to outcomes beneficial or otherwise. Jones and Cleere [ 30 ] reference the European Science Foundation in defining research impacts in terms of both their contributions to specific fields and in terms of how they are enacted. Thus, research impacts on policy can be manifested through contributions to the political culture, the policy development process and the stability of the political regime.

Brewer [ 8 ] argues that policy-specific impacts are demonstrated in research use by policymakers, research uptake into policies, and by improved effectiveness of policies and health services.

Wilkinson et al. Their broad definition encompasses the processes of knowledge exchange and relationships that facilitate research impact. Definitions each varied on one of four domains of meaning, namely contribution, change, avenues and levels of impacts Table 2. Research impact was most often defined in terms of the contribution that research made to different areas of influence, including among others the economy, society, environment, culture, policies and health.

Research impact definitions also varied concerning the types of avenues of impact, i. This was the second predominant construct found in definitions. Two main aspects emerged from definitions, namely 1 research has impact by changing knowledge, understanding, awareness and attitudes, or through creating products effects on different avenues of impact ; and 2 research has impact through scholarly activities or excellent research through effects on quality and behaviour.

Another important element was the variety of synonyms for impact that existed, i. Finally, the research impact construct was also commonly defined through a range of levels of impacts that research evidence can have i. This review confirmed the heterogeneous and recombinant nature of research impact definitions indicating, perhaps, struggles to find an acceptable definition for this complex term [ 8 , 9 , 59 ].

However, our review also highlighted that most of the research impact literature discusses this concept without explicitly defining it, with only one-fifth of peer-reviewed journal articles doing so. Attempts to define research impact were more common in the grey than in the peer-reviewed literature, confirming the extent to which impact is a bureaucratic rather than academic term [ 60 , 61 ]. The dominance of research governance definitions indicated by our review, reflects the political history of the impact agenda [ 62 , 63 ].

However, their continued dominance may limit the pursuit of academic understandings of research impact by restricting it to demonstrable returns from research investments. Our review found evidence of this type of focus in nearly a third of research impact definitions. Most definitions of research impact emphasised positive returns. While some definitions used more neutral language, negative impacts of research were rarely mentioned.

The issue from a research governance standpoint is whether a focus on impacts defined in terms of non-academic benefits creates an incentive to skew results to demonstrate benefit, even where there is none. This may create perverse incentives to implement ideas before they have been properly tested or their implications fully thought through.

Most definitions interpreted research impact as leading to positive gains or the reduction in societal harms. However, there are several examples of research that has had negative or, at least, contested impacts e.

Knowledge valorisation is gaining significant traction in the European Union research funding and dissemination discourse. Valorisation is a process by which academic knowledge is transformed into social and economic value [ 65 , 66 ]. Valorisation focusses on the process of value creation from academic research through commercial activities and industry associations with academia; in other words, it is closely associated with the commercialisation of academic research [ 67 ]. Valorisation is a concept that is linked to, but not the same as, a definition of research impact.

Perhaps due to its focus on commercialisation, the literature on valorisation has paid less attention to policy impacts of research. Furthermore, Benneworth [ 67 ] has critiqued the conceptualisation of knowledge valorisation for being more applicable to the physical and life sciences than to the humanities and social sciences. Around half of the research impact definitions included a consideration of how research impacts on policy, mostly by mentioning policy as one of several impact foci.

The complexities involved in the conceptualisation of research impact on policy have been acknowledged by many authors [ 7 , 10 , 13 ].

However, these uncertainties exist, in part, due to a lack of agreed upon definitions of research impact that can facilitate a research agenda. There are several recognised difficulties in attributing a policy impact to a specific piece of research [ 5 , 69 , 70 ]. The original piece of research may be re-interpreted in the policy process in ways that are incorrect or not consistent with its intent, or it may be adapted to particular contexts and transformed in the process.

Multiple influences at different stages of research and policy translation may also function to diffuse knowledge. Policy change, as suggested by Thomas [ 71 ], is dynamic and the product of a web of decisions that may reflect competing values that result in political compromises. A policy relevant definition of research impact should take account of the fact that there is not always a direct pathway from evidence to policy and that impact can be more, or less, directly identifiable — depending on whether that impact is conceptual or instrumental [ 22 , 24 ].

Consequently, for a research impact definition to adequately capture the complexities of policy impacts, it must include elements that relate to two different phenomena — policy content and policy processes. We need a definition that is clear about the different, both direct and indirect, ways in which research can impact on policy and thus help us investigate it for academic purposes.

Based on this review, we propose the following definition for research impact on health policy that can be tailored for use in health disciplines, including public and mental health. A definition specific to mental health is given:. This definition tailors core constructs that were identified in the literature to the field of health policy. It includes the constructs of contribution but not demonstrable , change, research outputs, policies, practices, various avenues and levels of impacts and encompasses impacts that may be said to occur at different time points.

The definition overcomes some of the limitations of existing definitions. It does not restrict research impact to its measurable qualities and includes both desirable and undesirable impacts, allowing for its use in different contexts to capture the full range of possible research impacts.

Of the definitions available, the proposed definition is perhaps most similar to that of the ARC [ 39 ] definition. The key strength of this review is its comprehensiveness and wide coverage of both peer-reviewed and grey literature, the latter having been neglected in previous reviews.

The use of a systematic search methodology allowed us to identify the prevalence and reach of different types of definition and research impact definitions overall. The review confirmed that the two most common definitions in both peer-reviewed and grey literature originated from the grey literature, supporting the need to include the grey literature in future reviews of research impact studies.

Lindblom, Charles E. Lindquist, E. Stone, A. Denham and M. Lyden, F. Shipman, R. Wilkinson and P. Le Breton. LeBreton ed. May, Peter J. Mayer, Igor S. Meltsner, Arnold J. Milner, Helen V. Keohane and HelenV. Mortensen, Peter B. Sabatier, Paul A.

Simmons, R. Davis, R. Chapman and D. Simon, Herbert A. Smith, Richard A.