This report underscores the variability and complexity inherent in measuring research impact, revealing some of how different Nordic countries tackle this challenge within their institutional frameworks.
One major takeaway is the importance of embracing diverse methodologies, as a one-size-fits-all approach seems ineffective in capturing the broad spectrum of research impact. Different fields of study, with their unique characteristics and societal impacts, require tailored assessment strategies. This diversity, while challenging, is essential for a comprehensive understanding of research impact.
Another lesson is the need for collaboration and shared learning. The interviews suggests that Nordic research councils can benefit greatly from exchanging methodologies, experiences, and insights. Such collaboration could lead to the standardisation of some assessment practices and infrastructure, making it easier to compare and understand research impact across different fields and countries.
There is a trend towards more structured, data-driven methodologies, with an increasing interest in leveraging digital tools, automation, and AI for data gathering and impact evaluation. Thus, successful integration of technology is another crucial step forward. The lessons from this study suggest that leveraging digital tools for data collection, management, and analysis can streamline the research impact assessment process, making it more efficient and accurate. Advanced software solutions and digital platforms can facilitate the handling of large data sets, enabling more sophisticated analysis and interpretation of impact, whatever the definition, while simultaneously working toward valid operationalisation of the term research impact.In contrast, there seems to be a simultaneous trend toward complimentary qualitative assessments in the form of narrative- and case study-based approaches. The methodologies for collating and analysing these data may vary case by case but, nonetheless, these offer an attractive option for more nuanced and approachable storytelling.
Conclusively, espescially central questions regarding what ought to be considered valid operationalisation of research impact and how to measure it, as well as methodology and best practices would benefit from shared discussions and development across organisations.