What's your evidence-based research impact method?

When defining our impact question, we should consider the following three issues: (a) socioeconomic and environmental impact; (b) theoretical novelty; and (c) research gap.

Using the PESTLE model for framing the impact question is useful I think. And to keep in mind that impact is medium to long term

In my experience defining the impact question for policy advocacy interventions can be quite helpful in focusing the scope of data collection and impact measurement on what is within your agency. While the overall goal may well be adoption, review or repeal of a particular policy or practice; not only may this take a long time to realize, it will require more interventions most likely by many players. Defining your impact question therefore helps you in clarifying is specific and answerable because you are agentic at that level.

We should also state what would happen if the problem persisted. And emphasize on the required outcomes and how the outcomes are measured.

To measure the research impact I'd say 1) granted funds 2) number of publications and journal ranks 3) articles' citations 4) number of people/stakeholders potentially impacted 5) environmental benefit and 6) social benefit

Wherever possible, implement a participatory process. What do those who will benefit from the intervention / program / policy actually want? Those living in situ know the context best and know what is needed. Focus groups or key informant interviews are good starting points.

I believe that using innovative and creative techniques leading to new methodologies properly set in a cultural environment can often solve longstanding problems. For example when managing salinity, I patented below a process where industrial waste is treated and transformed into a product that creates a surface seal on soil to prevent evaporation. This patent was the result of my own recognition that salinity and pollution problems are intrinsically linked, and that being able to use one to assist the other would solve two problems at once.

# Presenting the problem to stakeholders offering them an insight of what is it they're facing, can ignite in them the curiosity to raise questions the researchers didn't notice or have ignored. # The most important point of researching and the crowning jewel of any research, is to publish the findings and disseminate knowledge of a solution to a pressing problem. Sharing the intricacies of developing research methodology, designing experiments, collection of data and analysis of it, with stakeholders give more energy and torc to the process. # Stakeholders are the ones that fund and raise the issue of accountability and faisaiblility of suggested methods. Financial aspects of the research can be well managed and kept in mind through them.

Policy-makers of the Poor States of the Third Wors Countries; Donor states and agencies working for addressing the problem of food security facing the world through agricultural development, Agriculture and Food Security and local farmers.

Look for tools that other researchers have already validated in similar contexts. No need to reinvent the wheel if an effective tool already exists. You can always adapt tools to suit your specific needs—be sure to document all of this in your methods.

# With stakeholders on board our research is a go. Experimentation is the next step. Think of what influences the root you are dealing with. Find as many possible variables that can be manipulated and design your experiments to test these variables. We must collect background information. An experiment that has already been validated saves effort and time simply because it can be tweeked to fit our needs. Why design it from scratch?! #A wide range sample offers more validity to results. # Controlled experiments to collect quantitative data offer more accuracy. #Surveys to collect qualitative (opinions, demographic distribution) and quantitative data (population percentages). #Statistical analysis to formulate conclusions &further questions.

The impact indicators would be increase in the agricultural yied and increase in food, which will lead to an increase food food security.

It will also depend on the research question and method chosen. If you perform a review, you will collect literature-based data (e.g., from WoS and Scopus databases). If you perform a survey or interviews, you will have interviewees. And so on. The bottom line is that you have to choose depending on the research question of your study and method/research design.

After finishing with our first cycle of experimentation we need to do multiples repeats. As different tools offer a wider perspective and scope of the problem we are about to solve, we must use different tools for different purposes and that eventually confirm the results or show progress on the topic we are dealing with. As mentioned above surveys, experiments, interviews, statistical analysis methods must come together to build a holistic view of what and how we are dealing/solving the problem at hand. Retracing our steps and taking few steps back allows us to connect the dots and join two or more solutions that should come together for the desired end result.

It was 2001 when I was leading the team of DFID-funded Pakistan Participatory Poverty Assessment project ofthe Planning Commission of Pakistan in the former FATA(Federally Administered Tribal Areas) of Pakistan. We were based in the residence of the Political Tehsildar of Tehsil Toe Khola in South Waziristan. One day, I saw a green spot in the midst of the vaststretch of the barron land. When I asked, the locals told me that it was the agricultural field developed by the owner of the land that was barren before it. I, along with my team, went there. The name of the owner was a grey-bearded man named Malik Kabul. He had spent a little money and had converted the barren land into agricultural land simply by constructing a dug well.

It is vital. First, you can present it by combining the results with your discussion section or by separating them. Results are descriptive, where you show the main characteristics of your study. When you discuss, you should make your results "speak" with the literature and vice-versa. You should compare and look for explanations based on the literature to your results. Also, it would be necessary to consider (1) theoretical and (2) practitioner contributions. In theoretical contributions, you should discuss and present your theoretical advancements. In practitioners' one, you will provide a guide and recommendations on what they can do to improve their work and have an impact, creating value for stakeholders.

Malik Kabul borrowed and invested PKR 100,000 and dug a well to irrigate the land. He sowed grain, fruits and vegetables in the piece of land he owned. He recovered the invested money during the first year and cleared the debt. Now he was self-sufficient in food grains; he had his own vegetables and his own fruits to eat. Moreover, he said his health was also moving fast towards betterment since he had sarted working in his farm and making himself busy in growing something growing fast. He said, and I am sure he was right, that if this model is replicated in the varren lands like the former tribal areas of Pakista, the problem of food security will be addressed effectively.

Illustration means! No one is interested in reading a 100 pages research whatever the topic. We must use words that are relevant to the average reader. Long sentences and technical jargon is out of the question when publishing our findings in a magazine, even if it related to science. The major point is to spread the word about our research. Graphs, charts, colored and themed with small notes and icons recognizable by most people is a go. The visual aids (pictures, drawings, annotated diagrams) offer a striking contrast with bits of words here and there. Such arrangements offer the reader a much better grasp and allows the illusion of control and prior knowledge to kick in, they'd be hooked! Presentation is key. Use subtle &relaxing themes.

I have made the following actions multiple times. If I am coauthoring the paper, I ask my coauthors to evaluate our manuscript, each one individually, and then we discuss points for improvement (on both research and impact assessment). After this, we discuss which journal we want to submit. And then, our research will be reviewed by editors and peers. And at the end, if it is considered okay, our study will be published. If we need to improve our research, we do it. Conversely, we submit it elsewhere if the issue concerns the journal's scope.

As a mental health promotion professional at headspace, I used the Evidence-Based Research Impact (EBRI) method to boost youth mental health. We began with a clear question: "How can we encourage open mental health discussions among young people?" We engaged stakeholders, selected impact indicators, collected data ethically, and communicated results effectively. The impact was evident—more youth talked about mental health, teachers and parents were more supportive, and we kept improving. EBRI was the key to transforming youth mental health in our community.