Think day on creating real-world impact with research

I recently set aside time to think about how I can improve the impact of my research by communicating better my research findings with the industry and the public sector. The think day was designed as a structured reflection and planning session focused on how research reaches the real world, where that process breaks down, and how engagement with industry and ministries can be made systematic rather than ad hoc or personality-dependent. I tailored everything to my work, and then developed a more general template for anyone who want to go through the same reflection:

0. Opening — Clarifying Your Impact Orientation (10 minutes)

Objective: establish a shared and explicit understanding of what “impact” means in your role and context.

Participants reflect on:

How their research is intended to influence practice, policy, or society
Which pathways currently exist between their work and real-world application
Whether their impact is primarily direct (e.g. applied research, consulting) or indirect (e.g. standards, education, agenda-setting)

Outcome: a short, written statement describing the participant’s working definition of impact for the coming years.
This statement serves as a compass for the rest of the session.

1. Mapping the Current Impact Ecosystem (20 minutes)

Objective: visualize where impact already occurs and where friction prevents research from being used.

Participants map their activities across four domains:

Academia → Students
Academia → Industry
Academia → Ministries / Public Authorities
Academia → Society / Public

For each domain, participants identify:

Existing strengths
Weaknesses or blind spots
Bottlenecks (structural, institutional, capacity-related)
Latent opportunities not yet activated

Outcome: identification of one root-cause friction per domain, rather than surface symptoms.

2. Stakeholder Prioritization (15 minutes)

Objective: reduce scatter and focus engagement where it matters most.

Participants list current and potential stakeholders and position them along two dimensions:

Strategic relevance (alignment with research agenda, institutional goals, funding potential)
Willingness to collaborate (based on evidence, not assumptions)

Stakeholders are then categorized into:

High priority for active engagement
Secondary or delegated relationships
Relationships to pause or discontinue

Outcome: a shortlist of three priority stakeholders to deepen engagement with over the next 12–18 months.

3. Identifying the Translational Gap (20 minutes)

Objective: understand why research often fails to cross from knowledge into implementation.

Participants reflect on:

Where their research currently “stops” in the pipeline
Which formats decision-makers actually need versus what academics usually produce
Whether missing roles, skills, or intermediaries block translation

Participants then brainstorm concrete translational outputs, such as:

Policy briefs
Technical guidelines
Training modules
Decision tools
Templates or standards language

These are ranked by effort versus expected impact.

Outcome: selection of two realistic pilot deliverables to test in the near term.

4. Engagement Strategy — Institutionalizing Access (20 minutes)

Objective: move from informal networks to durable, institutional relationships.

Participants consider:

How engagement with industry and ministries could be made recurring and predictable
Which interactions should be formalized (e.g. MoUs, joint programs, embedded roles)
What value the institution offers beyond individual expertise
How reciprocity can be articulated clearly

Participants outline a 12-month engagement plan, including: