Specificity equals credibility
A named policy team is more believable than "policymakers". A goal-driven, specific plan inspires reviewers and funders far more than a list of activities with no clear point.
You haven't saved any answers in Step 1 yet. Go back to Step 1 to set your impact goal, it carries straight into the plan you'll build here.
In Step 1 you envisioned the difference your research could make. Now you'll turn that vision into a plan, getting clear about who might benefit, how you'll engage them, and how you'll know it's working.
An impact plan is a "logic model": a credible pathway from your research to the change you want to see. Done well, it earns trust, protects you from nasty surprises, and sharpens your goals. Three reasons it pays off:
A named policy team is more believable than "policymakers". A goal-driven, specific plan inspires reviewers and funders far more than a list of activities with no clear point.
Spotting problematic or hard-to-reach groups early gives you time to adapt, instead of running into opposition, or winning for one group at another's expense.
Thinking through the pathway in structured detail usually brings the clarity to reframe your impact goals and make them more convincing and powerful.
We can boil down our advice on writing the impact sections of your grant to one idea: be goal-driven and specific. Proposals that seek to achieve a clear impact goal are more likely to inspire reviewers and be believable than those that fall into the trap of simply communicating research findings, or listing numerous activities with no clear point.
For us, specificity equals credibility.
A proposal to work with "policymakers".
A proposal to work with a named policy team within a specific government department, naming the key people in a position to enact change, with clear indicators of when each goal is met, and, instead of "social media", the exact platform, who you'll target on it, and the impact goal it preferentially achieves.
The fact that you know the names and positions of key people implies you have a credible plan that will work. If you want to take a deeper dive into integrating impact into funding proposals, check out our *Creating fundable impact plans* workshop.
It is just as important to identify individuals, organizations, groups and publics who might be disadvantaged by your work, or who may block it, as it is to know your beneficiaries and who can help. Knowing about problematic or hard-to-reach groups at the outset gives you time to adapt your research before you run into opposition.
It may seem self-evident, yet it is surprising how often this step is omitted in projects with non-academic partners, and that omission can quietly compromise the whole project. Too few stakeholders engaged leads to a lack of ownership; a single important group omitted can challenge the legitimacy of the work and undermine its credibility. Public/stakeholder analysis solves this by:
No stakeholders yet. Add beneficiaries, the people who can help, and anyone who could block your work or be disadvantaged by it.
For a deeper, more systematic method, see our *Inclusive stakeholder analysis* workshop.
Your plan is a logic model driven by the impact goal you set in Step 1. Work through each part below, your entries save automatically. If you're still not convinced of your goal, fill in the rest and revisit it at the end; the detail usually brings the clarity to make it more powerful.
The change you want to see (from Step 1). Everything else hangs off this.
Tie the pathway to YOUR research, not other evidence, so the impacts are genuinely your research impacts.
How you'll communicate or co-produce messages, tailored to each group. Start early with influential or hard-to-reach groups.
Show how each activity is working, giving you feedback on your practice.
Show whether your intended impacts are actually occurring (milestones reached, change achieved).
How you'll actually evaluate each indicator, concrete and feasible, quantitative or qualitative.
Name the risks and unintended consequences yourself, and how you'll mitigate them. Funders trust teams that see the risks.
What help you need, who is responsible for each activity, and when you'll time it around your research and stakeholders' agendas.
0 of 8 parts started
Decide who is doing what, and when. Assign responsibility for each activity, agree any deadlines, and time activities around your research programme and your stakeholders' own priorities and agendas. Get feedback from colleagues and, if you can, from stakeholders, then make checking in a habit. Put progress towards impact on the agenda of your regular meetings, and consider an ongoing, accountable relationship such as a biannual stakeholder advisory meeting.
Don't let the plan become a straitjacket. Targets and indicators keep your impact on track, but they shouldn't stop you adapting your objectives to changing stakeholder needs, or seizing new opportunities as they arise.
Turn last week's impact goal into an actionable plan. Tick each off as you go, your progress is saved.