The power of impact: Research that makes a difference

In this episode, we explore how research can drive real-world change with Dr. Avni Misra, a lecturer and researcher at RMIT University’s College of Business who is passionate about making research outcomes beneficial to society.

Dr. Misra shares her journey from lab science to innovation management and introduces a five-stage approach that moves research beyond academia and into actionable outcomes.

Whether you are new to research or a seasoned pro, this episode will inspire you to think about how your work can truly make a difference.

You can listen to the full interview in our podcast:

Also available on:

Transcript

Madeline Arkins:

Today, I have the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Avni Misra. She is a researcher and lecturer at RMIT University’s College of Business with expertise in innovation management, particularly digitalised innovation, business networks, and industrial marketing.

In addition to her work in innovation, she explores the role of gender in organisational decision-making and leads several projects focused on the gender equality space. Avni also teaches and coordinates courses in Product Innovation and B2B Marketing with a PhD in Innovation and Industrial Marketing from RMIT and two master’s degrees, one in Business Marketing and one in Biotechnology.

She brings a wealth of knowledge to both her research and teaching, and I am hoping we can get more into that in our chat today. Avni, thanks so much for joining us.

Avni Misra:

Thank you, Madeline. That is a very good introduction, I usually don’t introduce myself that much.

Madeline Arkins:

I am glad I could do it. For any of our attendees who were able to attend our conference in Madrid this year, you may also recognise Avni from a workshop she led on our last day.  

Let’s get started. For the uninitiated, I think you have an extensive academic background. How did your educational journey lead you to focus on innovation management and impact and gender equality?

Avni Misra:

I started with a career in STEM. I did my bachelor’s in life sciences, and I did a master’s in biotechnology. I then worked in forensics for some time, and the more I worked there, the more I realised that I am not a very lab-oriented person, with all due respect to everyone who works in labs for long hours.

I always wanted to see the more practical side of doing action-oriented work, so I just shifted my focus from that to marketing. I ended up working in marketing in India and California for some time. Then, I realised that I needed to formalise this a bit more, and I am more interested in research in that space.

So, I came to Australia, I did another master’s degree, and they roped me in for a PhD. That is how the journey of innovation management started, because it always fascinated me how things happen in the space. How do these products come to market? How do people connect with each other to take things from a company, or a lab, to the market and to selling them to end users?

In the course of this journey, I worked with many brilliant academics from across the globe. One of them happens to be Professor Anne-Laure Mention. She is leading many projects, but one of the things that she led was the OpenInnoTrain project, which was funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 grant. As a part of that, there was a big team of people with whom we developed this toolkit for impact, because we realised that there are great researchers and there is lots of academic work happening. She is at the intersection of industry and academia, so it was her direction and ideology that we converted into a toolkit, which then pushed my interest and impact.

There were also certain personal reasons during COVID. I am from India, and I lost some family members to COVID. It was one of those real-life incidents that pushes you to think: “What am I doing with my life?”. I realised that there is not much that I can contribute from being a medical doctor or being this or that; what I have is a research skill. How can I contribute to society with just that research skill that can be helpful for a lot of people?

That is how my impact journey started, and I became very passionate about it. I just want to take this more as a spreading awareness.

I want researchers and industry people to think about society first, and then think about the work and skills that they are going to develop, because if it cannot translate, it is not going to be very useful. It is not going to get the full return of what has been invested.

Madeline Arkins:

I can tell that you are very passionate while you were speaking about it, which is lovely to hear. I think that whole aspect of action-oriented work and doing more than sitting back is precisely what we are here to talk about today.

Talking more about impact, it is a word that is thrown around a lot, sometimes to little effect. It seems almost like a buzzword. Can you explain what societal impact means in the context of research and maybe why we are seeing it being more advocated for in recent years?

Avni Misra:

That is actually a very good question, Madeline. I would like to give a little bit of context here.

So, as I said, when we developed the tool, we developed it as a five-stage process. I think we are going to talk about the process later, but in that process, the first thing that we did was running these pilot workshops with people trying to understand, and explaining them, what impact is.

The first thing that came back to us after the first workshop was that a lot of people did not truly understand the meaning of societal impact. In fact, in academia sometimes, or even in the industry, the narrative was more about self-promotion, rather than societal impact. It was more about, “Oh, are you talking to me about my research on YouTube? Are you talking to me about my research beyond a publication of a paper?”.

Essentially, yes. That is the mid-step to societal impact. But societal impact in itself means outcomes of your work that can benefit the society, that can deal with the grand challenges that are there in the society: climate, environment, sustainability, poverty… Challenges that can address some of the SDGs or goals listed by the United Nations, challenges that can benefit at different levels: individual people, communities, states, countries…

For me, impact is basically translating your work such that, if I can’t in some way or the other experience, hold, or utilise your research in some way, then I don’t think you have created enough impact as an end user.

That is my thinking about what impact truly means. It means real-world outcome. It is a very interesting definition, which is divided into two key areas. One is research-related outputs that create impact, and the other is research-related outcomes that create impact.

Outputs are more documented pieces of work, such as a webinar. I am doing this podcast right now, which is an output. An outcome would be if someone listens to this podcast, connects with me, gets those canvases in action, creates a project, works on it and delivers something to society, that then solves a very big problem, like poverty or education.

That would be the real outcome of this particular research. That is what societal impact truly means.

Madeline Arkins:

It is interesting that you say that sometimes it can be confused at first with self-promotion. I have never heard it said in such concrete words before, but that is, I think, what some people think. Maybe that is also a reason why researchers who typically like to work in isolation are unwilling to engage in that if it is perceived that way.

What I might want to ask is more about these canvases and toolkits that came out of the project and with which you work a lot in your own work. Can you describe them a little bit more? What are also some key indicators or metrics that researchers can use to evaluate their impact?

We also talk about impact sometimes being quite intangible. You talk about outputs versus outcomes. Do you have any more to say on the evaluation?

Avni Misra:

The toolkits are actually a very simple approach. The way they originated was after many iterations and many conversations with brilliant people who worked on the project. Just to name a few, there was Massimo Menichinelli, who at that time was working with RMIT Europe. We have Èlia Vallejos, Project Manager, Kerry O’Conner, another Project Coordinator, Kateryna Kryzhanivska, who is from LUT, and Ahmad Alaassar, who is now working in another university in Norway. We all worked together with many other researchers. In fact, the list is very long, because it includes everybody who was associated with Open Entry and Project.

We gradually developed this process, and I was inspired by one of the canvases that was done by Strategyzer, the very famous value proposition canvas and the business canvas. I found that approach to be very simplistic, because it shows how simply can you make someone do something from theory to action.

I thought, “What if we could convert impact thinking into that kind of approach?”. That is how the canvases came into action. They start with the identification of emerging contexts. Basically, taking a marketing approach, where you identify the market first, and then you think about the project or the product or service.

So, if you are an academic or an industry person trying to start a project within the sphere of your institution or your company, the first thing would be to look at, “What are the problems in the market? Where is it that my expertise aligns with what is going on?”.

We then try and find that mid-ground through various external factors, addressing the internal situations and competitive factors, and then coming down to one key problem, and how can you, as a researcher, implement that.

What we usually do is we put people in groups of different disciplines. So, a STEM researcher working with a social science researcher and an engineer on various aspects in STEM, and then asking them to find a mid-ground. To find where you can coincide with each other in terms of your work and skills, and then come up with a problem that can be viewed from different perspectives, but that is solving the same issue that all of you are worried about. That is how we identify the context in which they want to work. It is a very multidisciplinary, cross-collaboration approach.

The next step is all about mapping a rough project. What is it that we build here? What resources would I need? What budget would I need? It is like a project management approach there.

The next part is the engagement canvas, where we talk about, “Okay, I know the project now, I know the specifications. Who would be interested in this? Who can I collaborate with? Who can I partner with? Who can I get on board? Who would be the end user for this? How am I supposed to map the journey all the way from where I am to the end user and who is going to be involved in between?”. So, all the stakeholders that I can possibly think of, whether it is people from the industry, government, academia, collaborations, companies, managers…

And the last one, and I think that is the most important and the most nuanced version of any impact approach that is available, is that we developed a tracking canvas.

A tracking canvas is a canvas that helps you in mapping your engagement in the metrics. Once you know the metrics, and it is very difficult to map societal outcomes, the real-world impact is very hard to measure. There are certain metrics in place, and certain people are still figuring them out, because there are many solutions for measuring outputs, but for measuring outcomes, you don’t have that many.

What we did was we converted that tracking part into a canvas where people can think about a strategy for how to put metrics with the engagement plan, and then back to the project, and lastly way back to the context. You know all of these are linked; they are interdependent. And then finally you have your own strategic map ready for an impact-oriented, an impact-worthy project that can then lead to various impact outcomes.

That is the five-stage process.

Madeline Arkins:

It is really comprehensive and so outward-looking from the outset, which I think is how these things have to go. To entirely flip the switch on involving and identifying the market first, most definitely.

Do you have any examples you could share, Avni, from your own research where you have applied this five-stage process or seen it work with and be successful?

Avni Misra:

I don’t usually lead research projects as such. I usually work in collaboration with “big researchers”. Whatever projects I put my hand in now are all impact related. I personally have made this decision that I will not choose projects that do not have any impact on society, no matter how financially wonderful they are.

Because at the end, I want that satisfaction that comes from the need to give back in some way. OpenInnoTrain is in itself an exemplary project. Exemplary is an understatement, I wish I had more words to define that. It is an exemplary project, since it ran five summer schools across multiple countries, with people joining us from different universities across the globe (United States, Africa…), pretty much every continent that it could possibly reach. It is a five-day approach.

The output was highly unexpected, because each one of those participants, when they went back, they have used those canvases to design their projects. They have used that approach and their thinking has evolved.

While I was training them, the team members were engaged with the development of all the different lectures and material, in which they put so much effort, as well as in building the mindset. We didn’t focus on the output as much. The summer school was more focused on giving them the tools and changing their mindset, so they could go back to their place and implement everything they had learned.

We have testimonials that show that it has happened; feedback from people coming and saying: “The way I have thought about research and societal impact has completely evolved for me after attending the summer school”. People are emotional about it, which is a great thing when people attach emotions to a theory. I think it has made a difference in some way.

Another project that I am working on with another researcher from RMIT Australia, which is led by Dr. Marian Makkar, is about the Australian life blood. It is about the donation of blood, questioning why Gen Z is not donating blood in Australia. To me, that kind of project will bring real output; we are creating knowledge that might be useful for a government research institution to find out what is happening in the state of public welfare, which is related to blood donation.

I don’t think we needed the canvas at that point in time. The societal impact mindset that we have in RMIT itself is a very big push, since RMIT stands fifth in the world in terms of societal impact related research. Our mindset and culture are such that everyone thinks about research in the same way.

I am also working with another RMIT Australia researcher and associate professor, Bernardo Figueiredo, whose work is on ageism and digitalisation. Specifically, he investigates how to connect seniors and older people with digital education and literacy and how he has been able to give these extensive, comprehensive tools that seniors are finding super easy now. Some questions that have come up are: “How can I use that book and toolkit to teach my grandparents how to use the Internet?” or “How can they interact with the computer?”, the answers to which are really important in today’s world and are going to lead to a lot of awareness in many different ways.

Those are the kind of projects that, even though I am not particularly in the lead, I am so happy to be associated in whatever way it is: Facilitating workshops, designing toolkits, working on data analysis… Some way or the other, it contributes to society.

And the good part is that you don’t have to deviate from your regular passion if you are a researcher. If I was a qualitative researcher, I wouldn’t have to deviate from it. I don’t have to be any different, because I can still publish. I can still meet the requirements of the university. I can still teach and do all the other things, and yet be a researcher that can still contribute to society. I think that is what research truly should stand for.

Madeline Arkins:

It sounds like it is very gratifying to see the journey and the mindset shift in the people that you get to engage with. I also think it is important to share these stories of how researchers can have their cake and eat it too, in terms of still doing what they love, but also producing those outcomes and impact.

I am very interested in that lifeblood project. There was a project in Rotterdam, where I am based, that involved interviewing people and seeing if they would donate their data to hospitals. Obviously, the data that is collected by hospitals is overwhelmingly of people who are sick, and they were trying to flip the switch on that, and it was fascinating.

There is a question in the chat from Katrina. She asks: “What do you think about the idea that assessing researchers on their impact is a little unfair? Wouldn’t it be better to measure and assess the actions that they take towards adoption, given that, ultimately, impact is out of their control?”.

That is an interesting one. What is your take, Avni?

Avni Misra:

This is quite a controversial discussion; I should say this as a disclaimer: I am not representing any university when I am making this opinion. But from my point of view, I think the reason why I believe that assessment should be a criterion for researchers is to give them that push.

It is not to doubt anyone’s ability. It is not to counter anyone’s capacity of giving outputs. Of course, it should not be enforced on researchers. It is an absolutely personal choice. I can do research that can have societal benefit, and I can do research that does not have any societal benefits, but it would still be good research. It is still useful and publishable. It still gets you the merit and everything, and that is absolutely fine.

I think that the reason these frameworks are important now is because we should look around us. We are dealing currently with a lot of issues, and on top of that, in every nook and corner you can find a challenge that has to be dealt with, not for us, but maybe for future generations.

Realistically, these are more likely to be the drivers of change. Some people will get affected by it. Absolute agreement is very difficult to achieve, it rarely happens that everyone gets everything they need. It always comes with few people not getting what they wanted and a few people not being part of that journey or not being associated with that transition.

That is, unfortunately, how change happens. In my opinion, I think that having those criteria to assess researchers, while they can be assessed on other criteria, it is still a good thing, because it will push us to do research that will be meaningful in that area. Having said that, it doesn’t mean that those who are not doing those other research projects are not meaningful.

All I mean is that in the societal context, that would have a lot of benefits. And as a researcher, if you are spending so many months or years researching a particular topic, it would be a good thing, right? If you can kill two birds with the same stone, if you are doing great research and you are being acknowledged for it at the same time, and someone else is getting a benefit out of it, it is a win-win situation, that is what I think.

I do agree that this approach should not be imposed right here, right now. It will take time, it is a gradual process, changing that mindset won’t happen from one day to the next.

Several generations will have to be embedded into this mindset so that assessing them on their impact is a fair approach. I do agree that it is not fair nowadays to assess researchers too much through this method, because the mindset is not there yet.

Madeline Arkins:

Absolutely. I also think this is what cultural change is. I think if it is implemented hard and fast, then you are not really changing. Change doesn’t happen with absolute agreement, but if it also happens without consideration of the people involved, it will be seen as a lot more dictatorial. I think the actual intention of this kind of change is to drive impact.

Avni, I think we have time for one more question, just to bring us full circle. What kind of advice would you give to some early career researchers who want to design their projects with long term societal impact from the outset?

Avni Misra:

There are always two pieces of advice that I always tell. First of all, I think everyone should do research within an area that they are passionate about, and there are ways of connecting and aligning that with your institution requirements. It is not always the most straightforward pathway, but there are ways of moulding it. So, keep an eye out to see how you can align that.

Secondly, for societal impact I would always give this one advice. You don’t have to wait for something to finish to then think about societal impact. It is never after I publish this paper, after I collect this data, after I start with it.

The beauty of societal impact is the framework. For what I know from the one that we have designed at OpenInnoTrain, its beauty is that you can start anywhere: when you are about to finish your PhD, when you are starting a research project or when you have reached the mid-term of your research project, or any project for that matter.

There is no starting and ending point with impact. Be patient, because impact is long-term impact. It is not going to be one, two or three years. It is going to take a long time for impact to be visible, but I do believe that gradually you will see it happening. And how great would it be to be a part of such a change?

Madeline Arkins:

Absolutely. I don’t know about everyone else, but I am feeling energised by the power of now, which I think you can apply to most things in life, “act now”. It is also important to remind people that there is no point past the point of no return where you can’t change your mindset and change how you approach research.

Avni, thanks so much for joining us. As it always happens with the fireside chats, I feel like we only skimmed the surface of a topic in 30 minutes, but this was really interesting.

Avni, if people are interested in your work, where can they find you?

Avni Misra:

I am very active on LinkedIn. So, you can just search for my name, and then just add PhD to it, because that is how I have differentiated myself. You can just connect with me there; I am always so happy to talk to people about impact. If at any point anybody needs help strategising for impact, feel free to just raise a question. I would be happy to help.

Thank you so much, Madeline. It has been a great conversation.

Madeline Arkins:

Avni, thanks so much. Enjoy the rest of your evening. Thank you everyone for joining.

Ready for more?

If you want to dive deeper into the cultural change topic, our article Catalysing change in universities: A guide towards an entrepreneurial culture delves into the 4 key areas to develop an entrepreneurial culture at universities mentioned during the conversation.

If you are a member of the UIIN community, you can download our report brief Fostering engaged and entrepreneurial culture at universities, where we summarise the results of our research initiative around cultural change at universities.

Stay tuned for the next episode on this series and don’t forget to follow us on your preferred podcast platform!