Short intro to myself, societal impact context and Ghent Uni's policy plans for debate session Postdoc Community - 24 November 2014

1. 1
Hello, my name is Esther and I am … the odd one out.
First of all: I am not a postdoc, not even a doc and I have no research experience (as you
might define it).

2. Second (and for some maybe worse): I work at the dreaded rectorate as a research
policy advisor – an often faceless job balancing the hopes and dreams of many masters
and mistresses.
But you might also consider both issues as my strengths:
I am part of what they call ‘the public’. Moreover, my specific expertise as a policy
advisor lies in communication, information management and more recently, societal
impact.
2

3. So not only can you test out your exploits on me, I am a great go-between or broker and
even a partner. You can get policy-based (dare I say evidence-based) advice from me or I
can point you in the right direction by providing tools and examples so you can develop
your own special brand of impact.
So not only can you test out your exploits on me, I am a great go-between or broker and
even a partner. You can get policy-based (dare I say evidence-based) advice from me or I
can point you in the right direction by providing tools and examples so you can develop
your own special brand of impact.
3

4. And that is also why I am here now.
To give you an insight of what is happening in academia and policy when it comes to
societal impact, and where Ghent University is at (and wants to be) when it comes to
creating an environment for such efforts.
4

5. let’s just say that there’s a whole battery of words and phrases for what we are
discussing – knowledge exchange or mobilisation, public service, outreach, societal value
creation, impact
let me start with quickly contextualizing this concept:
Why should you bother with this societal impact malarkey?
5

6. I have found that it often makes for better science and better researchers. Of course
there is such a thing as ‘accountability’ (the public is paying so they have a right to your
science) but I am not a big fan of this approach. It works so much better if you look at it
in an authentic, almost intrinsic way. It really helps if you see the benefits and like doing
it.
6

7. All across the western world policy makers are trying to force this shift through research
evaluation and funding: from the Broader Impacts program of the NSF to the dreaded
REF and the Societal Challenges Pillar of Horizon 2020. Even our own FWO has
introduced an impact paragraph.
But do not shift too far. Do not be fooled into thinking that societal impact should be the
same as societal relevance. We must find a way to safeguard fundamental research too.
7

8. If you take back one thing from my talk is that creating an impact is an iterative process.
Do not be overly focused on results and output. There’s more to impact than
dissemination or straightforward applications. Sure, they are the proverbial cherry on
the cake but be careful you do not reduce these activities to a mere add-on.
8

9. Societal impact is achieved by an active (sometimes even proactive) negotiation with
stakeholders outside academia, looking for productive interactions. It means investing in
storytelling and developing a communication strategy that runs throughout your
research. It means trying a lot and learning to get your timing right.
Forget this misconstrued idea of academia as an Ivory Tower but take your place in the
Agora or marketplace that is society.
Make sure you invest in a strong and diverse network.
9

10. Besides, there is a whole smorgasbord of possibilities to unleash your creativity, fit for
your kind of research. To name but a few:
participatory research such as living labs, surveys and citizen science
Push the boundaries of science communication: lectures, training, blogs, tweets,
documentaries, infographics, podcasts, videos, apps
editing Wikipedia, writing columns, co-creating, changing legislation and creating
models
collaborating with schools and museums, organizing internships, advising policy and
offering your expert opinion.
And many many more…
10

11. Now what we propose with Ghent University’s plan is trying to take all this context into
account. What we propose is not a big bang but a well-considered array of actions. Let
us lower the threshold to impact by offering concrete tools and support, putting good
practices in the spotlight, and spreading impact literacy. Let us share the responsibility
and start changing the system one small revolution at a time - all the while respecting
the complexity of the pathways to impact, allowing space for the creativity and
individuality of our researchers.
11

12. A direct consequence of this is our refusal to take this glorious wealth captive by
indicators and checklists, by suggesting a purely quantitative approach – something that
has spread like a plague (albeit often of good intentions) through the Flemish HE and
R&D landscape.
12

13. But we are not there yet. We still have to conquer some big hurdles.
Besides this worrying urge to reduce everything to spread sheets and boxes to be ticked
– it even seems like we have lost the ability to truly evaluate people and their
accomplishments
the biggest challenge is the lack of appreciation and real incentives. When will outreach
and science communication be found to be an equal partner to research and economic
impact without expecting our researchers to be superhuman, excelling in all aspects of
the academic mission. When will the focus on the individual shift to the team where
people’s talents are put to better use?
13

14. 14