A Tale of Two Tonys: Redefining Research Impact for the 21st Century
As funders demand tangible results, science, technology and research organisations must lead with compelling narratives of societal benefit
Consider the story of Professor Tony Weiss at the University of Sydney. According to ResearchGate, he has 345 publications under his belt and has been cited almost seventeen thousand times. He is on 14 Editorial Boards, and is inventor on 174 awarded international patents in 23 patent families. The sale of his company Elastagen to AbbVie for A$334 million stands as one of the largest deals in Australia's biomedical sector.
Exciting, right? No? OK, let’s try this again.
For over two decades, Professor Tony Weiss has been the world's leading expert in tropoelastin, the unique biological building blocks that give human tissue its elasticity. His groundbreaking work has demonstrated the potential of tropoelastin not only to reduce scarring and tissue damage, but also to improve organ function and repair bone tissue.
Prof Weiss’s work in tropoelastin has the potential to help us fight the single greatest killer in the world: cardiovascular disease (CVD), which kills almost 18 million people every year. Studies have shown that tropoelastin may be able to heal the damage left by heart attacks – in just a single injection. If successful, this would save the lives of millions around the world, every year.
As my “Tale of Two Tonys” shows, numbers don't tell anything close to the full story. They don't capture the potential to revolutionise how the human body repairs itself, or what that means. They don’t share the hope his work brings to patients suffering from debilitating conditions.
Challenging the metrics game
Yet metrics still reign supreme. As those in the university sector know, for decades the mantra of "publish or perish" was the name of the game, with researchers funded primarily by the prestige of their publishing record. In recent years, there has been a move towards impact-based metrics, driven by governments and funding bodies seeking tangible returns on their investments.
The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of this movement, implementing a comprehensive impact assessment process that has now been running for over a decade. Other countries are following suit, recognizing that the value of research extends far beyond the confines of academic journals.
Yet, as with any paradigm shift, challenges abound. Too often, it's the funders who are defining what constitutes "impact," leading universities to tailor their communications to fit these narrow criteria. They remain passive, while governments create frameworks that aren’t always fit for purpose. Impact is thinned down to a rigid metric.
And this is a problem – although this approach is better than “publish or perish” for tracking real-world impact, it’s still a metrics game. It’s pragmatic, but it risks overlooking the broader, sometimes intangible ways in which research enriches society. The true value often lies in the intangible — the lives improved, the inspiration sparked, the pathways uncovered for future achievements, the paradigms shifted.
So that takes me to the question: what exactly is research impact?
I see the definition debated all the time – and a lot of the time, the debate itself takes centre stage. "We waste too much time admiring the problem," Professor Mark Hutchinson of the University of Adelaide remarked to me last year, highlighting the tendency for endless debates about definitions to overshadow actual progress. To cut through this noise, I offer my own definition of research impact: it is what benefits society or has the potential to benefit society.
It’s simple but not simplistic.
And this definition isn’t plucked out of the air – it has momentum. The USA’s National Science Foundation (NSF) “funds scientists and engineers to perform research that advances discovery and innovation.” The agency also expects researchers' work to have broader impacts: the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes. Without being overly prescriptive about outcomes, it has a list of indicators that can help track broader impact and I’d encourage you to review this.
This definition is intentionally broad, accommodating the diverse ways different fields contribute to human knowledge and well-being. And most importantly – as the remarkable story of tropoelastin shows – it avoids reducing impact to metrics alone.
The best impact stories are exactly that: stories. They can't be reduced to metrics or condensed into soundbites. They're narratives that weave together scientific discovery, human ingenuity, and societal benefit. They speak not just to what has been achieved, but to what might be possible.
How well do your stories tell your story?
In my last newsletter, I talked about universities featuring buildings instead of breakthroughs. I’ve heard that’s prompted some folks to count the buildings on their website. But this is only part of my point – even if your websites are accessible, are you talking about your impact or just sharing news? How well do your stories tell your story?
Effectively communicating the benefit of research requires this more nuanced, story-based approach. A mathematician's impact story differs greatly from that of a chemist, a policy researcher, or an applied scientist. Each field has its own language, its own measures of success, and its own ways of connecting with society.
As the research community grapples with how to define and measure impact, it's crucial that we take ownership instead of allowing others to dictate what impact looks like . By articulating a broader, more holistic vision of research impact, we can guide governments and funders – not to mention the general public – towards a deeper understanding of the myriad ways in which academic inquiry enriches our world.
In the end, research impact is about more than satisfying funding criteria or boosting institutional (or individual) prestige. It's about fulfilling the fundamental promise of scientific inquiry: to expand human knowledge and improve the human condition. By embracing this broader definition, we can ensure that the true value of research—in all its diverse, complex, and often unexpected forms—is recognised, celebrated, and nurtured.
So the question for you: Is a reliance on metrics holding you back? How would storytelling help instead?
See you next time!
Kylie
Image credit: https://www.boredpanda.com/badly-drawn-flat-dog-doodles-jay-cartner/
 | A guest post by
|