Usable, in‐use, and useful research: A 3U framework for demonstrating practice impact

In addition to innate curiosity, many of us also see scientific research as a way of making the world a better place. There has been a drive to better understand and observe the practical and societal impact of research, led by researchers seeking to find meaning and purpose in their work, as well as government agencies responsible for allocating research funding to maximum effect. Despite a wealth of guidance from researchers discussing impact and agencies evaluating impact, making practice impact visible and demonstrable remains arduous to researchers because it appears to be possible only at the end of a long and winding pathway to impact. This article presents a framework for demonstrating practice impact as it is being realized progressively, rather than only at the end of the pathway. It identifies usable, in‐use, and useful research outputs, with each having cumulative and demonstrable practice impact. Our analyses of existing impact evaluation guidelines and top‐ranked impact cases submitted to the Research Excellence Framework 2014 showed that all three forms of impact can be demonstrated and are recognized as practice impact. Framing impact in terms of “use” inherently connects the perspectives of researchers and beneficiary users and positions users as co‐producers of impact rather than passive objects and recipients of research. The 3U framework is descriptive as well as prescriptive. It identifies impact indicators for each form of impact. It also indicates the necessary actions for strengthening impact. When applied iteratively, the 3U framework facilitates the identification and pursuit of new research questions that will further solidify a research endeavour's practice impact.

[1]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[2]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting Critical Research in Information Systems , 2011, MIS Q..

[3]  Carol Saunders,et al.  Making an Impact in a Publish-or-Perish World , 2017, ECIS.

[4]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  Assessing IS Research Impact , 2015, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[5]  Margus Pedaste,et al.  Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review , 2017, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[6]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  The Last Research Mile: Achieving Both Rigor and Relevance in Information Systems Research , 2015, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[7]  Philippe Larédo,et al.  ASIRPA: A comprehensive theory-based approach to assessing the societal impacts of a research organization , 2015 .

[8]  A. Strauss,et al.  Grounded Theory in Practice , 1997 .

[9]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Do altmetrics assess societal impact in the same way as case studies? An empirical analysis testing the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) , 2018, arXiv.org.

[10]  Lisa M. Given,et al.  Bracing for impact: The role of information science in supporting societal research impact , 2015, ASIST.

[11]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF) , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[12]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Beyond Rigor and Relevance: Producing Consumable Research about Information Systems , 1998 .

[13]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Creating High-Value Real-World Impact through Systematic Programs of Research , 2017, MIS Q..

[14]  Asimina Vasalou,et al.  Impact in interdisciplinary and cross‐sector research: Opportunities and challenges , 2017, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[15]  Jae Kyu Lee Invited Commentary - Reflections on ICT-enabled Bright Society Research , 2016, Inf. Syst. Res..

[16]  Brennan Davis,et al.  Assessing the Societal Impact of Research: The Relational Engagement Approach , 2016 .

[17]  L. G. Pee,et al.  Artificial intelligence in healthcare robots: A social informatics study of knowledge embodiment , 2018, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[18]  Martin Bichler,et al.  Practice Impact of IS Research , 2015, Business & Information Systems Engineering.

[19]  Daniel Sarewitz,et al.  Improving the public value of science: A typology to inform discussion, design and implementation of research , 2016 .

[20]  Henry C. Lucas,et al.  The information systems identity crisis , 2005 .

[21]  Mark D. Dibner,et al.  Universities and Research Institutes , 1990 .

[22]  Niels Bjørn-Andersen,et al.  Do we care about the Societal Impact of our research? , 2019, Inf. Syst. J..

[23]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance , 1999, MIS Q..

[24]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  If Practice Makes Perfect, Where do we Stand? , 2019, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[25]  Yolande E. Chan,et al.  A review of the practical relevance of IS strategy scholarly research , 2019, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[26]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Toward Improving the Relevance of Information Systems Research to Practice: The Role of Applicability Checks , 2008, MIS Q..

[27]  R. Scoble,et al.  Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review , 2014 .

[28]  E. Burton Swanson,et al.  A Simple Research Impacts Model Applied to the Information Systems Field , 2014, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[29]  Jonathan Adams,et al.  The nature, scale and beneficiaries of research impact , 2015 .

[30]  L. G. Pee,et al.  Social informatics of information value cocreation: A case study of xiaomi's online user community , 2020, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..