For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
23
views
13
references
 Top references
cited by
0
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      166
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Extending the concept of research impact literacy: levels of literacy, institutional role and ethical considerations

      Author(s): ,
      Publication date (Electronic):
      Journal: Emerald Open Research
      Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Building on the concept of ‘impact literacy’ established in a previous paper from Bayley and Phipps, here we extend the principles of impact literacy in light of further insights into sector practice. More specifically, we focus on three additions needed in response to the sector-wide growth of impact: (1) differential levels of impact literacy; (2) institutional impact literacy and environment for impact; and (3) issues of ethics and values in research impact. This paper invites the sector to consider the relevance of all dimensions in establishing, maintaining and strengthening impact within the research landscape. We explore implications for individual professional development, institutional capacity building and ethical collaboration to maximise societal benefit.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          The Honest Broker

          Roger Pielke, Jr (2012)
          Book 0 comments Cited 354 times – based on 0 reviews
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?

            Kathryn Oliver, Anita Kothari, Nicholas Mays (2019)
            Background Coproduction, a collaborative model of research that includes stakeholders in the research process, has been widely advocated as a means of facilitating research use and impact. We summarise the arguments in favour of coproduction, the different approaches to establishing coproductive work and their costs, and offer some advice as to when and how to consider coproduction. Debate Despite the multiplicity of reasons and incentives to coproduce, there is little consensus about what coproduction is, why we do it, what effects we are trying to achieve, or the best coproduction techniques to achieve policy, practice or population health change. Furthermore, coproduction is not free risk or cost. Tensions can arise throughout coproduced research processes between the different interests involved. We identify five types of costs associated with coproduced research affecting the research itself, the research process, professional risks for researchers and stakeholders, personal risks for researchers and stakeholders, and risks to the wider cause of scholarship. Yet, these costs are rarely referred to in the literature, which generally calls for greater inclusion of stakeholders in research processes, focusing exclusively on potential positives. There are few tools to help researchers avoid or alleviate risks to themselves and their stakeholders. Conclusions First, we recommend identifying specific motivations for coproduction and clarifying exactly which outcomes are required for whom for any particular piece of research. Second, we suggest selecting strategies specifically designed to enable these outcomes to be achieved, and properly evaluated. Finally, in the absence of strong evidence about the impact and process of coproduction, we advise a cautious approach to coproduction. This would involve conscious and reflective research practice, evaluation of how coproduced research practices change outcomes, and exploration of the costs and benefits of coproduction. We propose some preliminary advice to help decide when coproduction is likely to be more or less useful.
            Article 0 comments Cited 243 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Critical health literacy: a review and critical analysis.

              Deborah Chinn (2011)
              Though there has been a considerable expansion of interest in the health literacy concept worldwide, there has also been criticism that this concept has been poorly defined, that it stretches the idea of "literacy" to an indefensible extent and more specifically, that it adds little to the existing concerns and intervention approaches of the better established discipline of health promotion. This paper takes as a starting point the expanded model of health literacy advanced by Nutbeam (2000) and addresses these concerns by interrogating the concept of "critical health literacy" in order to draw conclusions about its utility for advancing the health of individuals and communities. The constituent domains of critical health literacy are identified; namely information appraisal, understanding the social determinants of health, and collective action, and as far as possible each are clearly delineated, with links to related concepts made explicit. The paper concludes that an appreciation of work undertaken in a range of different disciplines, such as media studies, medical sociology, and evidence-based medicine can enhance our understanding of the critical health literacy construct and help us understand its usefulness as a social asset which helps individuals towards a critical engagement with health information. There is some evidence that aspects of critical health literacy have indeed been found to be a resource for better health outcomes, but more research is needed in this area, both to develop quantitative and qualitative approaches to evaluating health literacy skills, and to offer convincing evidence that investment in programmes designed to enhance critical health literacy are worthwhile. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Article 0 comments Cited 153 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Title: Emerald Open Research
                Abbreviated Title: Emerald Open Res
                Publisher: F1000 Research Ltd
                ISSN (Electronic): 2631-3952
                Publication date Created: 2019
                Publication date (Electronic): June 7 2019
                Volume: 1
                Page: 14
                Article
                DOI: 10.12688/emeraldopenres.13140.1
                SO-VID: c5b132ed-a643-4cd8-8c94-5d65f0ce9c21
                Copyright © © 2019
                License:

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article