Does engagement predict research use? An analysis of The Conversation Annual Survey 2016

PLoS One. 2018 Feb 7;13(2):e0192290. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192290. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

The impact of research on the world beyond academia has increasingly become an area of focus in research performance assessments internationally. Impact assessment is expected to incentivise researchers to increase engagement with industry, government and the public more broadly. Increased engagement is in turn expected to increase translation of research so decision-makers can use research to inform development of policies, programs, practices, processes, products, and other mechanisms, through which impact can be realised. However, research has shown that various factors affect research use, and evidence on 'what works' to increase decision-makers' use of research is limited. The Conversation is an open access research communication platform, published under Creative Commons licence, which translates research into news articles to engage a general audience, aiming to improve understanding of current issues and complex social problems. To identify factors that predict use of academic research and expertise reported in The Conversation, regression analyses were performed using The Conversation Australia 2016 Annual Survey data. A broad range of factors predicted use, with engagement actions being the most common. Interestingly, different types of engagement actions predicted different types of use. This suggests that to achieve impact through increased engagement, a deeper understanding of how and why different engagement actions elicit different types of use is needed. Findings also indicate The Conversation is overcoming some of the most commonly identified barriers to the use of research: access, relevance, actionable outcomes, and timeliness. As such, The Conversation offers an effective model for providing access to and communicating research in a way that enables use, a necessary precursor to achieving research impact.

MeSH terms

  • Cooperative Behavior*
  • Humans
  • Interprofessional Relations*
  • Research*
  • Surveys and Questionnaires*

Grants and funding

No funding was received for this conduct of this study. Dr Tim Cahill was employed by The Conversation at the time of the survey development and as his employer The Conversation paid his salary. No salary was provided specifically for the survey development as this was done as part of Dr Cahill’s normal duties. Dr Cahill invited Dr Zardo to contribute to the survey design. Dr Zardo contributed to the survey design as outlined in the methods section of the paper and was not paid for this work or any other work on this paper, in either funding or salary from The Conversation. Dr Tim Cahill was employed at KPMG Australia at the time of reviewing the manuscript. This review was done on personal time. KPMG did not provide funding for this project. Neither the Conversation nor KPMG had any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Dr Zardo, Associate Professor Barnett and Associate Professor Suzor did not receive any funding nor salary from The Conversation to undertake this project, the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript was undertaken in their roles as academics at Queensland University of Technology.