Annex C: Additional guidance on Impact Case Study (ICS) development

Overview

This annex reiterates the guidance from the REF 2021 Panel criteria Annex A with two key additions:

• a widened set of illustrative examples of impact and impact indicators
• a description and illustrative examples of engagement

Types of impact and possible indicators

The types of impact are intended to illustrate the wide variety of areas in which impact from research across the panels may be found to have an effect, change or benefit on or to the quality of life of individuals and/or communities locally, nationally and internationally. These are indicative only, not exhaustive, and in practice much of the impact will cross boundaries between the types or go beyond them. The following examples are grouped under themes, but examples given in one topic could equally apply within another. ICS are not expected to be classified in this way by submitting units. Searchable databases of ICS submitted to REF 2014 and REF 2021 are available.

Examples are also provided of impact evaluation frameworks used outside higher education. Impact partners may also have their own evaluation frameworks that could be drawn on to evidence impact.

Impacts on the health and wellbeing of people, and animal welfare

Impacts where the beneficiaries are individuals and groups (both human and animals) whose health outcomes have been improved, whose quality of life has been enhanced (or potential harm mitigated) or whose rights or interests have been protected or advocated through the application of enhanced policy and practice for individuals or public health activities.

Types of impacts:

• outcomes for patients/users or related groups have improved 
• public health or wellbeing has improved 
• quality of life has been improved by new products or processes 
• a new clinical or lifestyle intervention (for example, drug, diet, treatment or therapy) has been developed, trialled with patients/users, related or other groups (for example, community samples), and definitive (positive or negative) outcome demonstrated
• patient health outcomes have improved through, for example, the availability of new drug, treatment or therapy, diagnostic or medical technology, changes to patient care practices or changes to clinical or healthcare guidelines 
• a new diagnostic or clinical technology has been adopted
• disease prevention or markers of health have been enhanced by research
• misleading health claims identified by research are not included in food packaging
• care and educational practices have changed, including introduction of decision algorithms
• clinical, dietary, health or social care guidelines or pathways have changed 
• health or social care training guidelines have changed 
• decisions by a health service or regulatory authority (to take, or not to take action) have been informed by research
• public health and quality of life have been enhanced through, for example, enhanced public awareness of a health risk, enhanced disease prevention or improved water quality or access to health and social care 
• the user experience has improved
• increased patient/user involvement in shaping and implementing policy and practice
• research-led engagement leads to improved provision or access to services 
• public awareness of a health risk or benefit has been raised 
• the control of diseases has changed
• development or adoption of new indicators of health and wellbeing
• development of policy and practice with regard to medical ethics, health services or social care provision
• influence on CPD and training standards 
• influence or shaping of relevant legislation 
• influencing policy or practice leading to improved take-up or use of services
• improved provision or access to services
• animal health and welfare has been enhanced by research
• use of animals in research has been reduced, refined or replaced

Possible indicators:

• measures of improved clinical outcomes, public behaviour or health services (lives saved, reduced infection rates) 
• measures of improved wellbeing 
• evidence from clinical trials 
• measures of improved patient/user outcomes, public health or health services
• documented changes to clinical and/or public health guidelines (documented references to research evidence in guidelines) 
• evidence of enhancement of patient/user experience 
• evidence of take-up and use of new or improved products and processes that improve quality of life or animal welfare in any given context
• evidence of the number of animals no longer used in research or a specific sector (for example, per test, drug, laboratory or leisure industry) 
• documented changes to animal welfare codes or guidelines 

Impacts on creativity, culture and society

Impacts where the beneficiaries may include individuals, groups of individuals, organisations or communities whose behaviours, creative practices, rights, duties and other activity have been influenced.

Types of impacts:

• collaboration with museum professionals resulting in enhancements to (cultural) heritage preservation and interpretation, including curatorial practice such as museum and gallery exhibitions
• co-production of new cultural artefacts including, for example, films, novels, TV programmes, performances, compositions and games
• generating new ways of thinking that influence creative practice, its artistic quality or its audience reach
• inspiring, co-creating and supporting new forms of artistic, literary, linguistic, social, economic, religious and other expression
• collaboration with public arts venues, artists and programming professionals to produce new forms of artistic expression
• research-led engagement with marginalised, under-engaged and/or diverse audiences leading to increased cultural participation and the preservation, revitalisation or wider use of endangered, minority or heritage languages through education, cultural initiatives or community engagement
• developing stimuli to cultural tourism and contributing to the quality of the tourist experience
• improvements to legal and other frameworks for securing intellectual property rights
• generation or enhancement of cultural understanding and/or local traditions
• new forms of artistic expression resulting in enhancement of quality of life
• generation of enhancement of cultural understanding and/or local traditions

Possible indicators:

• testimonials from creative practitioners, curators, media, arts or heritage professionals
• publication and sales figures both in the UK and overseas, audience or attendance figures (including demographic data where relevant), broadcasting data and other forms of media, download figures or database and website hits over a sustained period
• evaluative reviews in the media
• citations in reviews outside academic literature. Independent citations in the media, including in online documents
• tourism data, including audience figures and visitor numbers at exhibitions, events or performances
• professional evaluations of exhibitions, performances or other outputs
• audience/visitor/participant feedback (for example, through surveys, interviews or focus groups)

Impacts on social welfare

Impacts where the beneficiaries include individuals, groups of individuals, organisations or communities whose rights, duties, behaviours, opportunities, inclusion, quality of life and other activity have been influenced.

Types of impacts:

• improved social welfare, equality, social inclusion; improved access to justice; improved access to healthcare and other opportunities (including employment and education)  
• engagement with research has enhanced policy and practice for securing poverty alleviation  
• influential contributions to campaigns for social, economic, political and/or legal change through engagement with civil society groups 
• changes to social policy have been informed by research 
• changes to social policy have led to improved social welfare, equality or social inclusion  
• research has contributed to community regeneration or development 
• improved social and educational inclusion of marginalised groups in any given context 
• improved access to services, education or civic participation through research-informed multilingual communication, translation, interpreting or language support
• more effective integration of refugees into host communities 
• enhanced understanding of victims’ needs in reconciliation processes in post-conflict states

Possible indicators:

• documented evidence of changes to social policy 
• measures of improved social equality, welfare or inclusion 
• citations in campaign literature (for example, leaflets)
• evidence of public debate in the media or other fora being influenced by the research  
• documented evidence of increased social inclusion (for example, participation figures)  
• testimonials from civil society groups and policymakers 

Impacts on commerce and the economy

Impacts where the beneficiaries may include businesses, either new or established, the NHS, private health and social care, agriculture or other types of organisation which undertake activity that may create wealth.  

Types of impacts:

• a spin-out or new business has been created, established its viability or generated revenue or profits  
• contribution to innovation and entrepreneurial activity through the design and delivery of new products or services  
• decisions are made not to introduce a new process or product as a result of research  
• social enterprise initiatives have been created  
• the costs of treatment, health or social care have changed as a result of research-led changes in practice  
• policies have been introduced which have had an impact on economic growth or incentivising productivity  
• gains in productivity have been realised as a result of research-led changes in practice  
• research helps to stimulate foreign direct investment (FDI)  
• the performance of an existing business has been improved through the introduction of new, or the improvement of existing, products, processes or services; the adoption of new, updated or enhanced technical standards and/or protocols; or the enhancement of strategy, operations or management practices  
• contribution to economic prosperity via the creative sector including publishing, music, theatre, museums and galleries, film and television, fashion, tourism and computer games  
• performance has been improved, or new or changed technologies or processes adopted, in companies or other organisations through highly skilled people having taken up specialist roles that draw on their research or through the provision of consultancy or training that draws on their research  
• potential future losses have been mitigated by improved methods of risk assessment and management in safety- or security-critical situations  
• research-led engagement with a business has led to a change in its strategy, operations or workplace practices 
• improved support for the development of ‘small scale’ technologies  
• improvements in legal frameworks, regulatory environment or governance of business entities  
• better access to finance opportunities  
• enhanced corporate social responsibility policies  
• more effective dispute resolution  
• alternative economic models (such as fair trade) have been developed and adopted  

Possible indicators:

• evidence of improved cost-effectiveness 
• evidence of service change  
• sales of new products/services  
• business performance measures (for example, turnover/profits, trends in key technical performance measures, underlying economic performance)  
• employment figures  
• licences awarded and brought to market; market authorisation  
• demonstrable collaborations with industry (including knowledge transfer partnerships (KTPs) and contracts)  
• commercial adoption of a new technology, process, knowledge or concept  
• business performance measures for example sales, turnover, profits or employment associated with new or improved products, processes or services
• jobs created or protected  
• investment funding raised from UK and/or non-UK agencies (venture capital/Business Angel and so on) for start-up businesses and new activities of existing businesses  
• expansion of start-up businesses and/or floatation on the stock exchange 
• priority shifts in expenditure profiles or quantifiable reallocation of corporate, non-profit or public budgets  
• evidence of critical impact on particular projects, products and processes confirmed by independent authoritative evidence, which should be financial where possible
• evidence of research leading to avoidance of negative outcomes  
• quantitative data relating, for example, to cost-effectiveness or organisational performance  
• professional assessment by an appropriately qualified valuer (where research has led to a change in the economic value of an object or cultural artefact) 
• tourism data, including audience figures and visitor numbers at exhibitions, events or performances  
• evidence of closing identified skills gaps  

Impacts on public policy, law and services

Impacts where the beneficiaries are usually government, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), legal institutions, charities and public sector organisations and society, either as a whole or groups of individuals in society, through the implementation or non-implementation of policies, systems or reforms.

Types of impacts:

• changes to legislation, regulations or guidelines have been informed by research evidence
• policy debate has been stimulated or informed by research evidence, which may have led to confirmation of policy, change in policy direction, implementation or withdrawal of policy
• research stimulates critical public debate that leads to the non-adoption of policy
• a policy has been implemented (including those realised through changes to legislation) or the delivery of a public service has changed
• research is used to change current processes or services or identify new services to be provided
• policymakers make use of research-based critical evidence synthesis in developing policy
• government analysts adopt innovative methodological or approach-based advice from researchers
• research recommendations are taken up by policymakers through membership of a government advisory committee
• in delivering a public service, a new technology or process has been developed and adopted or an existing technology or process improved or the user-base expanded
• the quality, accessibility, acceptability or cost-effectiveness of a public service has been improved
• (sections of) the public have benefited from public service improvements
• forms of regulation, dispute resolution or access to justice have been influenced
• legislative change, development of legal principle or effect on legal practice
• the quality of information available to parliamentarians is improved
• research is used by parliamentarians to develop proposals for new legislation through Private Members’ Bills or to assist scrutiny of legislation and inform amendments to other bills such as those introduced by government
• parliamentarians’ understanding of an issue has been strengthened, research helps parliamentarians and staff to identify inquiry topics, shape committee work plans, shape the focus of inquiries, inform questioning of witnesses and underpin recommendations
• research equips parliamentarians, their staff and legislative staff with new analytical or technical skills, or refreshes existing ones
• parliamentarians are better able to support, inform and advocate for their constituents
• parliamentarians and/or policy makers have been enabled to collaborate and pursue specific policy areas of interest
• parliamentarians and/or policy makers are more confident their policy focus has been fully considered from all angles
• scrutiny of government decisions and spending has been strengthened
• parliamentary debate has been reframed or strengthened
• allocation and/or distribution of Official Development Assistance (ODA) has been influenced by research
• policy and practice of international agencies or institutions have been influenced by research
•  international policy development has been influenced by research
• risks to the security of nation states have been reduced
• the work of an NGO, charitable or other organisation has been influenced by the research
• research into the languages and cultures of minority linguistic, ethnic, religious, immigrant, cultures and communities used by government, NGOs, charities or private sector to understand and respond to their needs

Possible indicators:

• documented evidence of use in policy debate (for example, at a parliamentary Select Committee, material produced by NGOs)  
• citation in a public discussion, consultation document or judgment  
• evidence of citation in policy, regulatory, strategy, practice or other documents 
• direct citations or acknowledgments of research in parliamentary publications such as Hansard/Record of Proceedings/Official Report, committee reports, evidence submissions, briefings or blogs. A demonstrated link between evidence and the researcher’s evidence, where there is no direct citation available, such as proof they provided a specific aspect of evidence or recommendation to the committee 
• acknowledgements to researchers on webpages, in reports or briefings  
• evidence of influence on a debate in public policy and practice through membership of or distinctive contributions to expert panels and policy committees or advice to Parliament or government (at local, national or international level)  
• quantitative indicators or statistics on the numbers of attendees or participants at a research event or website analytics for online briefings  
• qualitative feedback from participants or attendees at research events  
• data to show working relationship between researchers and parliamentary staff, such as minutes of meetings, membership of working groups, co-authoring of publications or relevant correspondence. Testimonials or qualitative feedback from members, committees or officials 
• government response to committee report/letter   
• documented evidence of influence on guidelines, legislation, regulation, policy or standards  
• analysis by third-party organisations of parliamentary proceedings or processes, for example studies of the passage of particular pieces of legislation 
• documented evidence of changes to international development policies  
• evidence of use of process/technology 
• measures of improved public services including, where appropriate, quantitative information; such information may relate, for example, to the quality, accessibility or cost-effectiveness of public services  
• measures of improved inclusion, welfare or equality  
• satisfaction measures (for example, with services)  
• formal agreements or evidence of appointments with policy makers, such as fellowship agreements, special advisor, committee advisor/expert, knowledge exchange fellow or research collaborations   
• evidence of engagement with campaign and pressure groups and other civil organisations (including membership and activities of those organisations and campaigns) as a result of research  
• documented evidence of changes to international development policies  
• measures of improved international equality, food security, welfare or inclusion 
• evidence of timely media engagement on current parliamentary matters, particularly when cited by parliamentarians or staff  
• copies of researcher-generated briefings shared, with acknowledgement of use from parliamentary staff or parliamentarians   
• official recognition of anonymous expert consultation or contribution   
• evidence of events held (or participated in) in Parliament with parliamentarians or staff in attendance  
• evidence of repeated requests for engagements or advice provided to parliamentarians or parliamentary staff  
• citation by parliamentarians or staff in a public forum  
• social media amplification of research or projects by parliamentarians or staff which highlight the value of the research   

Impacts on production

Impacts where the beneficiaries are individuals (including groups of individuals) whose production has been enhanced.  

Types of impacts:

• production, yields or quality have been enhanced or level of waste has been reduced  
• research helps to create routes to international innovation and market impact  
• research leads to improvement in productivity and resource-use efficiency  
• decisions by regulatory authorities have been influenced by research  
• more efficient production, including food production, for example where costs have been reduced  
• animal husbandry methods have changed  
• management practices in production businesses have changed 
• a new product has been recommended for use or adopted  
• development of a new plant variety or crop protection product which has entered the appropriate national or international regulatory testing system  

Possible indicators:

• evidence of improved sustainability  
• documented changes to working guidelines  
• documented evidence of improved working practices and/or level of production  

Impacts on practitioners and delivery of professional services, enhanced performance or ethical practice

Impacts where beneficiaries may include organisations or individuals, including service users, involved in the development and/or delivery of professional services and ethics.  

Types of impacts:

• professional standards, guidelines or training have been influenced by research  
• professional methods, ideas or ethics have been influenced by research 
• professionals and organisations are able to adapt to changing cultural values as a result of research  
• contribution to continuing personal and professional development  
• practitioners/professionals/lawyers have used research findings in conducting their work  
• professional bodies and learned societies have used research to define best practice, formulate policy or to lobby government or other stakeholders  
• workforce planning has been influenced by research  
• educational or pedagogical practices and methods have changed in primary, secondary, further or higher education, within or beyond the submitting unit  
• practices have changed, or new or improved processes or methods have been adopted by individuals, companies or other organisations, through the provision of training or consultancy  
• the development of expert systems has been influenced in areas such as medicine, human resources, accounting and financial services  
• the quality, efficiency or productivity of a professional service has improved  
• expert and legal work or forensic methods have been informed by research  
• law enforcement and security practices have changed 
• cessation of practices shown by research to be ineffective  

Possible indicators:

• documented change to professional standards, performance or behaviour  
• evidence of adoption of best practice (for example, by educators or law enforcement personnel)  
• new or modified professional standards, codes of practice or operational guidance  
• new or modified technical standards or protocols  
• documented changes in knowledge, capability or behaviours of individuals benefiting from training  
• evidence of debate among practitioners, leading to developments in attitudes or behaviours  
• literature/web information from practitioners and advisors, including the research findings and how they are applied in practice  
• traceable reference to inclusion of research in national or international industry standards or authoritative guidance  
• traceable references by practitioners to research papers that describe their use and the impact of the research  

Impacts on environment

Impacts where the key beneficiaries are the natural, historical and/or built environment, together with societies, individuals or groups of individuals who benefit as a result.  

Types of impacts:

• the environment has been improved through the introduction of new product(s), process(es) or service(s); the improvement of existing product(s), process(es) or services; or the enhancement of strategy, operations or management practices  
• new methods, models, monitoring or techniques have been developed that have led to changes or benefits  
• policy debate on climate change or the environment has been influenced by research
• policy debate on the environment, environmental policy decisions or planning decisions have been stimulated or informed by research and research evidence  
• improved design or implementation of environmental policy or regulation  
• the management or conservation of natural resources, including energy, water and food, has changed in a developing country  
• the management of an environmental risk or hazard has changed  
• changes in environmental or architectural design standards or general practice  
• influence on professional practice or codes  
• changes in practices or policies affecting biodiversity  
• the operations of a business or public service have been changed to achieve environmental (green) objectives  
• direct intervention, based on research evidence, has led to a reduction in carbon dioxide or other environmentally damaging emissions  
• increased understanding of the environmental impact of a product or process means that it is not adopted by industry  

Possible indicators:

• development of new green skills and/or technologies for tackling climate change 
• sales of new products, or improvements in existing products, that bring quantifiable environmental benefits  
• verifiable influence on particular projects or processes which bring environmental benefits  
• evidence of generic environmental impact across a sector, confirmed by independent authoritative evidence  
• traceable reference to inclusion of research into government policy papers, legislation and industry guidance  
• traceable reference to the influence of research in planning decision outcomes  
• traceable impacts on particular projects or processes which bring environmental benefits  
• evidence of generic environmental impact across a sector, confirmed by independent authoritative evidence  
• documented case-specific improvements to environment-related issues  

Impacts on understanding, learning and participation

Impacts where the beneficiaries are individuals, communities and organisations whose awareness, understanding, participation or engagement have been enhanced as a result of research.  

Types of impacts:

• enhanced cultural understanding of issues and phenomena; shaping or informing public attitudes and values  
• public interest and engagement in research has been stimulated through, for example, the enhancement of science education in schools  
• the awareness, attitudes or understanding of (sections of) the public have been informed, and their ability to make informed decisions on issues improved, by engaging them with research  
• public or political debate has been shaped or informed by research; this may include activity that has challenged established norms, modes of thought or practices  
• contribution to processes of commemoration, memorialisation and reconciliation  
• contribution to a wider public understanding of basic standards of wellbeing and human rights conceptions  
• contribution to widening public access to and participation in the political process 
• professionals and organisations have adapted to changing cultural values  
• research has challenged conventional wisdom, stimulating debate among stakeholders  
• increased understanding of gender roles in any given context has improved equality  
• changes to education or the school curriculum have been informed by research  
• influencing the design and delivery of curriculum and syllabi in schools, HEIs or other educational institutions  
• research results in changes to the delivery of vocational courses and subsequently changes to professional practice  
• reduced gap in academic attainment for students with protected characteristics 

Possible indicators:

• many organisations use the Generic Learning Outcomes (GLO) to evaluate impacts on knowledge and understanding
• documented evidence that public understanding has been enhanced through active collaborative involvement in research 
• documented evidence of policy debate (for example, in Parliament, the media, material produced by NGOs)
• public debate in the media
• documented shift in public attitude (for example, to sexual behaviour or social factors in health)
• documented evidence of enhanced awareness of health risks and benefits by consumers
• citation in a public discussion, consultation document or judgement
• citation by journalists, broadcasters or social media
• evidence of increased public uptake of scientific training, through public engagement
• information about the number and profile of people engaged and types of audience
• evidence of secondary reach, for example, from follow-up activity or media coverage
• evidence of sustainability through, for example, a sustained or ongoing engagement with a group, a significant increase in participation in events or programmes or use of resources
• evidence of engagement with campaign and pressure groups and other civil organisations (including membership and activities of those organisations and campaigns) as a result of research
• measures of increased attainment and/or measures of improved engagement with science in non-HE education
• evidence of use of education materials arising from the research 

Methods and domains of engagement

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. 

Engagement includes, but is not limited to: 

• reciprocal flows of knowledge, understanding or skills including planned or spontaneous relationships that inform research, build trust, influence practice or policy and/or support public participation 
• activities that are accountable to affected communities and funders 
• varied disciplinary practices that may directly or indirectly contribute to wider societal, economic, cultural or environmental benefits (impact)

The type(s) of engagement in any ICS will reflect the context of the work and aim of the engagement activity. Different disciplines may have more typical forms of engagement, but no form is discipline bound. Engagement may be highly focused and time bound or broader and without time limits. Engagement can be strategic and planned or emergent, serendipitous and/or opportunistic. 

Engagement can be thought of as a mix of method (how) and domain (who). Where they can be evidenced to have contributed to impact, sub-panels welcome information on the engagement methods employed, including the parties involved, to understand how the impact was achieved – see sub-section 2., Section 7: Assessment criteria – E&I in the Panel criteria for further guidance on when to include a description of engagement as part of an ICS narrative.

The list below provides a range of examples to illustrate various, but not exhaustive, forms of engagement. It is not a prescriptive list, but rather a range of examples aiming to highlight the varied ways research may be connected with society. Categories are provided to help capture the purpose of engagement, but methods may fall into numerous categories depending on their design. Note that there are many other forms of engagement not listed here that are also welcomed in the submissions. Submitting institutions are invited to detail whatever engagement activities are relevant to the work presented.

Methods of engagement

Methods of engagement (how) are diverse and examples of that diversity are given below. Engagement may be undertaken by researchers, other members of staff or non-academic parties, to enable the circulation and use of knowledge across contexts.

Example methods:

• activities typically designed to inform or raise awareness: for example, briefings; exhibitions (non-interactive); media engagement; submission of evidence to parliamentary committees, public lectures, readings or performances; social media; reports
• activities designed to build dialogue and mutual learning: for example, citizen juries; community forums; consensus conferences; deliberative forums; interactive exhibitions; public engagement platforms; participatory workshops; school engagement; festivals; museum and gallery interpretation
• consultation activities to elicit specific input: for example, surveys; public consultations; calls for evidence; stakeholder feedback exercises; public patient involvement and engagement
• focused stakeholder activities to shape research or research use: for example, advisory boards; co-design workshops; collaborative evaluation; consultation exercises; focus groups; multi-stakeholder platforms; NGO partnerships; pilot implementation with stakeholders; practitioner roundtables; user panels
• activities to boost translational capacity and capabilities: for example, communities of practice; evidence synthesis initiatives; knowledge brokers; knowledge exchange platforms; policy labs and simulations; hackathons, research–practice networks; secondments; translational research centres; What Works Centres
• co-produced and participatory activities: for example, citizen science monitoring; citizen social science; crowdsourced transcription; volunteered geographic information; citizen juries, civic data initiatives; participatory mapping; community archiving; co-designed clinical research and public patient involvement and engagement; co-produced policy research; participatory and co-created artistic research; living labs; participatory action research; transdisciplinary sustainability research; co-design/user-centred design

Domains of engagement

Domains of engagement (who) describe where and with whom engagement takes place; examples are given below. Modes and domains intersect and are dependent upon the context. 

The methods listed above may run in whichever domain is relevant to the case, such as: 

• communities: for example, community-based public health initiatives; community heritage co-curation; environmental stewardship partnerships; Indigenous knowledge co-production; oral history projects; participatory budgeting; community advisory boards
• culture and creativity: for example, artist residencies; digital storytelling; documentary film as research; exhibitions and museum interpretation; participatory installations; community music; practice-based artistic research; narrative inquiry; theatre and performance-based research
• industry, business and the commercial sector: for example, collaborative research and development (R&D); consultancy; contract research; creative content development partnerships; design collaborations; innovation hubs and incubators; KTPs; licensing and commercialisation of creative works; standards development
• policy, policy makers and governance: for example, co-produced policy frameworks; expert testimony; policy fellowships or secondments; guideline development; international policy processes; parliamentary engagement; policy advisory roles; policy briefings; policy co-design; regulatory consultation
• practitioners and public services: for example, co-development with practitioners; embedded researchers; pilot implementation with practitioners/in-service delivery settings; practitioner networks; partnerships with public service organisations; professional learning and training; secondments into practice; service co-design 

Panels welcome examples of where research has been strengthened by learning from users, partners and beneficiaries. Any of the above individuals or groups may provide valuable time, insight and resources that contributes to the reach or significance of an impact. ICS may cover where effective engagement recognises these contributions, uses them responsibly and where researchers are accountable to the people their work affects.