Public engagement impact and the REF Discussion paper

Public engagement, impact and the REF Discussion paper Prepared by the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement April 2011

Challenges set for the panel workshop The REF team have asked us to address the following questions at the workshop on the 9 th May. • In relation to the case studies: – What are the kinds of impacts that can be realised from engaging the public with research? – What kinds of evidence of these impacts would be both realistic for institutions to produce, and sufficient for panels to make robust judgements? – Impacts must be underpinned by the submitted unit’s research. What kinds of links between a submitted unit’s research and the engagement activity should count in the REF? • In relation to the broader ‘impact statement’, what kinds of evidence would panels expect to see about a submitted units’ strategy or general approach to engaging the public with its research? This presentation is intended to provide a background briefing to the workshop. We have approached the challenge set by the REF team by addressing the five topics set out on the next slide.

Structure • What is Public Engagement, for the purposes of the REF? • What is the relationship between research, public engagement and impact? • Evidencing impact: defining the outcomes of public engagement • Evidencing impact: techniques to capture evidence of reach and significance • Assessing the quality of impacts from public engagement: some challenges • Other key issues • Public Engagement and The impact statement

WHAT IS PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT?

Researchers engage with a range of professional agencies in different sectors : they can also engage directly with the public. This diagram ‘maps’ the different external groups with whom they might engage The public The media Schools, colleges and lifelong learning Public sector Communities of interest Cultural and leisure services Communities of place Health and well being agencies Policy community Quangos and govt agencies Non Governmental Organisations RESEARCHER Community organisations and societies Local / regional / national govt Voluntary organisations and charities Local authorities / strategic bodies International community Businesses and industry Business community Social enterprises Community and 3 rd sector

This interaction with the public can take many forms – from lectures or media appearances, to contact at festivals or performances, or through involving them as ‘citizen scientists’ in their research, etc. Often, the interaction with the public is helped by an intermediary, eg the media, a school, a community organisation or a museum / gallery. When thinking about the ‘general public’, it is helpful to differentiate, eg by geography or interest, rather than to view the public as an undifferentiated ‘mass’. • ‘communities of place’, or geographic communities, describes interactions with people living in a particular location. • ‘communities of interest’ describes people who share a common interest or purpose; similar needs or attitudes, ethnicity, socioeconomic status or life stage.

So what is Public Engagement? Public engagement (for the purposes of the REF) describes activity, led by research staff, which creates interaction between members of the public and the research process or outputs, with the goal of generating some kind of benefit or impact

Public engagement involving the public and other agencies. The boundaries between public engagement and other forms of engagement will often be blurred. Sometimes the engagement will be directly with members of the public. Sometimes it will be facilitated by intermediaries like the media. And sometimes the researchers will chose to engage in ‘three way’ conversations, for instance bringing policy makers, members of the public and third sector organisations together in dialogue or debate. This example represents the ‘footprint’ of an engagement project where the research team worked with a range of health agencies, policy makers and local residents to explore the needs of vulnerable adults.

Public engagement can serve a range of purposes. The NCCPE has produced a simple framework for differentiating these different purposes. These are not unique to engaging with the public, but usefully capture the types of purposes that underpin any kind of external engagement. Purpose Exemplar activities INFORMING: Inspiring, informing and educating • • • Here to goal is to communicate the activity and outputs of research, while encouraging feedback, comments and questions CONSULTING: Actively listening to the public’s views, insights and concerns Here the goal is to feed the public’s views and insights into the research process itself COLLABORATING: Working in partnership with the public to solve problems together, drawing on each other’s expertise Here the goal is to involve the public as participants and collaborators in the research process • • presentations and lectures festival appearances media work exhibitions writing for non-specialists, whether online or in journalism or books. public meetings and discussion events panels and user groups online consultation deliberation and 'upstream' engagement • collaborative research projects • ‘citizen science’ where the public are actively involved in the collection and analysis of data • helpdesks or the like, to make it easy for people outside the university to draw on university expertise

Public engagement and mutual benefit • An important principle that underpins public engagement (and one that differentiates it from PR or dissemination) is that it should involve mutual benefit, with the researcher benefiting from the interaction as well as the public, for instance through enhanced insights into the ‘needs’ that their research is helping to tackle; by opening up new avenues for research; or by generating new data sources perhaps through ‘citizen scientists’ contributing to the project. • Because of the way the REF is framed, capturing this mutual benefit isn’t straightforward. The ‘impact’ section is explicitly focused on benefits to the public / wider society. Capturing the impact public engagement can have on the excellence of the research itself will need to be reflected in the outputs and environment sections. • The next slide attempts to visualise this.

Public engagement and mutual benefit CONTRIBUTING TO EXCELLENT RESEARCH Through dialogue, consultation and upstream engagement Captured in Outputs and Environment Research topic Engagement with the public GENERATING BENEFITS TO SOCIETY AND TO THE ECONOMY By informing, consulting and collaborating with the public Captured in Case studies How the Uo. A supports effective public engagement: captured in the impact statement

Another key issue to clarify in the opening orientation WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND IMPACT?

How is impact generated? Research Engagement Generation of benefit / impact It is helpful to think of research, engagement and the generation of impact as three interdependent processes. Sometimes the engagement and exchange will begin before the research itself starts - allowing the research to be better ‘tuned’ to the needs or concerns of the potential beneficiaries. Sometimes there is a more linear model, where the research is completed, and then potential beneficiaries are engaged. Sometimes benefits / impact can be generated without any engagement taking place. It is never a completely linear process, as this diagram might imply: the illustration is meant to cast light on the relationships, but not to describe the complex interactions over the lifetime of a project.

The impact case study. Research Engagement Generation of benefit / impact An impact case study attempts to ‘tell the story’ of the research, the engagement (where relevant), and the impact generated. This diagram represents a case study where the engagement happened towards the end of the research project, contributing to a variety of benefits.

The impact case study (II). Research Engagement Generation of benefit / impact This diagram represents a case study where the engagement began before the research formally started, and continued for the lifetime of the project, helping to generate a range of different benefits & outcomes. In both cases, the engagement is part of the impact ‘story’. Understanding what engagement took place and how it was conducted provides important contextual evidence which can inform the assessment process

The impact case study (III). Public engagement Research Business engagement Public Engagement Third sector engagement Policy engagement Generation of benefit / impact Research Engagement Generation of benefit / impact Sometimes a case study will be focused on a project in which public engagement played a very significant part in the generation of the impacts and benefits (show in the first diagram). In others, it will be one part of a broader engagement ‘mix’ (shown in the second diagram)

The impact case study (IV). Public engagement Research Business engagement Engagement Third sector engagement Policy engagement Generation of benefit / impact It is also entirely possible that in some case studies no external engagement is referenced, but a number of significant impacts or public benefits are evidenced. It is useful to distinguish between ‘public engagement’ and ‘public benefit’. Public benefits can realised without any public engagement having taken place. The public do not need to have been engaged for these benefits to be realised: e. g. researchers could work with a health agency to apply their research, leading to better targeted services. The public haven’t been involved in that interaction, but benefit from it.

EVIDENCING IMPACT: THE OUTCOMES OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

The REF guidance offers two ways of framing the assessment of impact. • One is a draft typology of impacts, represented in the diagram below: • The other are the concepts of ‘reach’ (how widely felt it was) and its ‘significance’ (how much difference it made to the beneficiaries) • In this section we explore how the ‘outcomes’ of public engagement with research can best be understood and assessed • In the next section we will explore reach and significance

Outcomes of public engagement To help the panels (and submitting institutions) to understand the potential benefits of public engagement, we have drawn out three key outcome areas where it can make a demonstrable impact on the people taking part, and a fourth area where it can impact on wider ‘social’ infrastructure. Most public engagement projects generate benefits in more than one of these areas. INFRASTRUCTURE Improved services, policies or support for the public Impacts on wider society VALUES, ATTITUDES, EMOTIONS Inspiration; Enjoyment; Curiosity Creativity; Resilience Well-being; Aspiration Self-confidence Trust and mutual understanding AWARENESS, KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS Increased awareness New knowledge New understanding New skills BEHAVIOUR & ACTION Changed behaviour Informed decision making Follow up activity and involvement Increased participation Impacts on the public

AWARENESS, KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS Typical objectives Potential impacts • Raising public awareness, informing public opinion and public discourse, encouraging lifelong learning, cultural enrichment Evidence of REACH Evidence of SIGNIFICANCE • Numbers engaged, and demographics of those engaged • Sales / downloads of linked resources / publications • Public awareness or opinion is influenced by their interaction with the research activity or outputs • People’s knowledge and understanding of the research outputs is developed and enhanced • People learn new skills as a direct result of engaging with the research activity or outputs How engaging with the research outputs has led to demonstrable changes to the participants’: Awareness, Knowledge and Understanding This could be evidenced by showing how the public have: • Learned facts or information • Made sense of something new • Deepened their understanding of a particular topic, experience, encounter or issue • Made links and relationships between things, eg by applying insights from the research to their own lives or community • Used their prior knowledge in new ways • Learned about how research is conducted and how researchers work Skills This could be evidenced by showing how the public have: • Learnt how to do something new • Developed their decision making or leadership skills • Developed their research skills, or ability to access information • Enhanced their intellectual skills (eg reading, thinking critically and analytically) • Developed their social skills (eg team working, showing an interest in the concerns of others) • Developed their emotional skills (recognising the feelings of others etc) • Developed their communication skills (writing, speaking, listening) Critical acclaim or professional endorsement, e. g. Critical reviews of • What evidence do reviews provide of how effectively the research has been ‘translated’ to capture public outputs interest and to stimulate increased understanding of the research area, or new skills? Feedback from • In their opinion, how effectively were the research outputs communicated to the target audience? What ‘intermediaries’ or evidence can they provide of how the public’s awareness, understanding or skills were enhanced? experts

VALUES, ATTITUDES AND EMOTIONS Typical objectives Potential impacts • Stimulating debate and discussion, encouraging reflection , building trust and mutual understanding, generating inspiration and curiosity (eg about science, or arts) Evidence of REACH Evidence of SIGNIFICANCE • Numbers engaged, and demographics of those engaged • Sales / downloads of linked resources / publications • • People enjoy themselves and are inspired by the experience People become more questioning, motivated and open to other’s perspectives People feel increased understanding of and trust in the activity and motivations of researchers People feel increased personal efficacy, for instance increased self-confidence, resilience, aspiration or well-being How engaging with the research outputs has led to demonstrable changes to the participants’: Attitudes and values What evidence is provided to show the interaction with the research has influenced people’s: • Feelings and perceptions • Opinions / attitudes about self or others • Opinions / attitudes about wider society • Levels of trust and mutual understanding • Opinions / attitudes about research and researchers • Empathy / capacity for tolerance (or lack of these) Enjoyment, inspiration, creativity What evidence is provided to show the interaction with the research has influenced people’s levels of: • Inspiration • Curiosity • Enjoyment • Commitment to exploration or experimentation What evidence is provided to show the interaction with the research has influenced people’s: • Self-confidence and self-esteem • Resilience • Aspiration • Feelings of well-being (good relationships, autonomy, competence and a sense of purpose, as well as feelings of happiness and satisfaction) Personal efficacy Critical acclaim or professional endorsement, e. g. Feedback from • In their opinion, how significantly did the research activity and outputs positively influence people’s values, ‘intermediaries’ or attitudes or feelings? What evidence can they provide of what those impacts were? experts

BEHAVIOUR AND ACTION Typical objectives Potential impacts Evidence of REACH Evidence of SIGNIFICANCE • Inspiring action and / or changed behaviours ; stimulating involvement and participation • People take action as a result of their involvement, for instance by choosing to enrol for a course or to attend future engagement events • People adapt their behaviour as a result of their participation • People decide to do something different with their lives • Numbers engaged, and demographics of those engaged • Sales / downloads of linked resources / publications How engaging with the research outputs has led to demonstrable changes to the quantity or quality of the participants’ actual or intended: Social interactions Civic participation E. g. meeting new people; experiencing new social situations E. g. voting; participation in local or national decision making; volunteering Engagement with research Cultural engagement Health ‘Sustainable’ behaviours E. g. involvement in deliberation about the future direction of research, or in the actual conduct of a research project; interest in continuing to do this in the future E. g. attending performances, exhibitions, lectures; reading, browsing or listening to / viewing a wider range of material than before E. g. changes to diet or exercise or care for their own mental well-being; E. g. choices about transport; recycling; food; energy consumption

INFRASTRUCTURE Typical objectives • Building capacity in organisations who work with the public; enhancing the professional skills or expertise of individuals or organisations who work with the public; enhancing the quality of services or infrastructure to benefit the public Potential impacts • • The research outputs demonstrably enrich and enhance the curriculum in non-HEI settings Community organisations develop increased capacity to respond to community needs, eg through enhanced research capacity Publishers or media outlets invest in increased coverage of the research outputs Third parties invest in infrastructure – eg visitor centres, events programmes, exhibitions or festivals – to engage the public with the research outputs ‘Intermediaries’ (such as media producers/commissioners, journalists or museum / gallery staff) acknowledge that the research has increased their understanding of the topic area and influenced their professional practice Intermediaries’ report an increase in their confidence and competence to communicate the research outputs, and to engage their ‘public’ with them Community groups report that their access to funding, resources or information has improved Participant organisations report expanded networks and contacts with other useful organisations, the wider community or groups working to similar goals • NB the impacts on the public themselves – eg how significantly the pupils understandings or skills were enhanced by the activity – would be evidenced using the relevant ‘public’ outcome area • Numbers of professionals engaged in the particular settings (eg teachers). An indication of the numbers of members of the public Evidence of reached by those intermediaries might also be provided REACH • Information about the demographics of the public who will benefit from the new infrastructure/activity • Sales / downloads of linked resources / publications Impacts on professional practice of intermediaries: Evidence of SIGNIFICANCE How engaging with the research outputs has led to demonstrable changes to the participants’ ability to: Assess public/community needs This could be evidenced by: • Anecdotal feedback from intermediaries Communicate the relevant research • Structured feedback via questionnaires outputs to the public Enhance the quality of their policies or • Expert review / assessment of the activity services for the public Impact on the level of investment to support public engagement with the research outputs What contribution (in cash or kind) have This could be evidenced by: third parties made to enhance services • A description of the activities and outputs contributed or support for the public? • An assessment of the value of those contributions • A description of how (for instance) a community group’s access to funding, resources or information has improved

EVIDENCING IMPACT: ASSESSING THE REACH AND SIGNIFICANCE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

• There a number of existing evaluation techniques which have been developed to enable evidence of ‘reach’ and ‘significance’ to be captured. • The next four slides provide examples of how such techniques could be applied to some typical engagement activities. It’s based upon existing evaluation guidance already published eg by the different research councils, and by the NCCPE. • The outcomes described in the previous section can be integrated with these techniques to design appropriate evaluation activity, which should provide robust evidence of impact, for instance through the design of participant questionnaires.

Techniques for eliciting evidence of reach and significance Activity Examples presentations and lectures A researcher POSSIBLE EVIDENCE delivers a lecture -Numbers of people attending about their -Demographic of the audience research as part of an HEIs public programme festival appearances Interactive events Assessing reach A research team deliver a series of workshops at a public festival to engage families with their on. TECHNIQUES TO ELICIT going research -Count people on entry project -Categorise people at registration, by observation of questionnaire Assessing significance - - Qualitative feedback from the audience about the relevance and interest of the topic Evidence of how their views / understandings of the research changed as a result of taking part Evidence of follow up by the public, eg people agreeing to contribute to the study longer term Ask people for baseline views when they register to attend or buy tickets Exit questionnaires, follow up focus groups or questionnaires Evaluator to observe and analyse the event

Exhibitions or open days Activity Examples Assessing reach Exhibitions or open days A researcher POSSIBLE EVIDENCE works with a local -Numbers of people attending museum to inform -Demographic of the audience a new public exhibition A research team creates an interactive exhibition about their project to feature as part of an open day Assessing significance - - TECHNIQUES TO ELICIT • Count people on entry • Categorise people at registration, by observation of questionnaire • • • The extent to which the research outputs featured in the exhibition Qualitative feedback from the audience about the relevance and interest of the topic Evidence of how their views / understandings of the research changed as a result of taking part Evidence of follow up by the public, eg people agreeing to contribute to the study longer term Ask people for baseline views when they register to attend or buy tickets Exit / follow up questionnaires or focus groups Short face to face interviews during event Observation Comment books

Broadcast media work Activity Examples Assessing reach broadcast media work A researcher POSSIBLE EVIDENCE appears regularly • Estimated size of audience on news and demographic programmes (eg the Today programme) to discuss their specialist research A researcher acts as academic consultant on a TV TECHNIQUES TO ELICIT series that broadly overlaps • Request audience data from media outlet with their research area Assessing significance • • The extent to which the research outputs featured in the item Indications of audience response, eg comments posted on programme website; people phoning in; emails / letters inspired by broadcast; requests for follow up material (if offered) Qualitative feedback from producer, peers or public Collect recording of the item and transcript, to demonstrate how the research outputs featured Gather data of ‘follow up’ requests / comments Invite producer/peer to comment on how effectively the outputs were communicated to the target audience; and how their own understandings of the area have been deepened Focus groups or interviews with audience

Web or social media Activity Examples Assessing reach Assessing significance web or social media work A researcher establishes and maintains a project blog to document the progress and outputs of her project POSSIBLE EVIDENCE -Numbers of ‘users’ -Demographic of the users • A researcher generates webbased teaching resources aimed at secondary schools • • TECHNIQUES TO ELICIT • Page views and numbers of • unique users • Pop up questionnaires on site, • or registration procedures to establish demographic • • The extent to which the research outputs featured in web content Indications of audience response, eg comments posted; emails / letters inspired by content; requests for follow up material (if offered); recommendations to others Qualitative feedback from producer, peers or public Use pop up questionnaires on site, or registration procedures to establish baseline Use pop up questionnaires to follow up and investigate impacts Provide interactive email facility or ‘comments’ box to elicit feedback Record the order in which pages are accessed and dwell time on each page

ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF IMPACTS ARISING FROM PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT: SOME CHALLENGES

• The preceding sections explain methods and an outcome framework which can be used to describe the impacts and benefits from engaging the public with research • As with any assessment exercise there are likely to be a number of challenges in applying these. This section outlines some of the areas where panels are likely to confront challenges in assessing quality. These build on feedback from the preparatory workshop at the end of March

Challenge Description ‘process’ vs ‘outcomes’ Assessing the quality of an engagement activity is challenging as many of the outcomes are very difficult to evidence robustly. There is a school of thought that any assessment should pay attention to the process undertaken as well as to the outcomes, and that the quality of the process is a reliable indicator of the likelihood of impact being achieved. This can be particularly useful where limited ‘hard’ evidence of impact is available. How far should the panel take ‘process’ into account in assessing quality? More background is provided about to this in the next slide. ‘breadth’ vs ‘depth’ Some case studies will demonstrate a very broad reach, with a large number of people engaged in the project. Assessing this against one where a much smaller number of people have been engaged, but in a much more profound way, will inevitably demand careful thought. ‘popular’ vs ‘niche’ Some research topics are inherently more appealing to the public than others. It will be important to weigh up the ‘advantage’ afforded to those researchers who have ‘popular’ activity to share, compared with others who are working in much more niche and specialist areas. Should recognition be given to successful attempts to engage the public with a ‘difficult’ topic, compared with a more accessible one? ‘generic’ vs ‘specific’ To communicate more specialist areas of research, audiences may well need help with the context: launching straight into the particular can ‘lose’ people and inhibit their understanding. How much of that ‘bridge building’ is it appropriate to include as part of a case study – or should it be excluded as it is not specifically related to the underpinning research? ‘one-way’ vs ‘twoway’ A defining quality of public engagement – which helps to differentiate it from simple dissemination – is that it should involve some element of mutuality. Although the focus of an impact case study has to be the impact on the public, should evidence of the researcher’s own learning from the process have any place in the assessment ? (e. g. evidencing how they ‘fine tuned’ the project to better meet the needs and interests of their beneficiaries, or how they utilised insights from the public to inform their own work) ‘one off’ vs ‘sustained’ Another characteristic of quality engagement is that thought is given to its sustainability: having generated interest or involvement, how can that be built upon? Sustainability is not always possible (or desirable) but should projects which demonstrate a proactive and thoughtful approach to sustainability be graded more positively than those that don’t? ‘hard to reach’ vs ‘low hanging fruit’ Some audiences are much ‘harder to reach’ than others. What credit should be given when a researcher has successfully engaged such an audience with their project?

What does a ‘quality’ engagement process look like? This slide captures the five key questions that any evaluator or experienced assessor would use to inform their judgements of a ‘good’ engagement project or process Why? Do they have a clear purpose / rationale for their engagement, which is clearly explained? How? Did they chose techniques appropriate to their purpose? Did the public have a meaningful and purposeful interaction with the research process / outputs? Have they identified how contextual factors (eg user receptiveness) influenced the engagement and impact? With what impact? Did they build in mechanisms to capture feedback (and to act on it)? Did lessons learned from the engagement feedback into the research process? Have they provided convincing evidence of the outcomes; intermediate impacts; impacts of their activity? Who? Is it clear who they chose to engage with? Did they have a clearly identified audience / need? Did they take steps to ‘tune’ their engagement activity to the interests of this audience? When? Depending on their purpose, did they engage with the public at the appropriate points in the research cycle? Did they manage the ‘closure’ or the engagement so that the participants were clear on what happens next? Did they address the sustainability of the engagement activity?

OTHER KEY ISSUES

Three other issues have arisen as part of the preparation, which merit further discussion: • The challenge of collating evidence retrospectively • Generic vs discipline-specific advice • Panel make up (and support)

Collating evidence retrospectively • The invitation to include impact (and impact arising from public engagement) was not present in the RAE. Although many researchers have been involved in public engagement since 2008, very few had any expectation that it would be included in a research assessment exercise, and so are unlikely to have utilised many of the assessment and evidence gathering techniques outlined above. The kinds of evidence we have outlined above are either difficult or impossible to gather retrospectively. • Given this, to what extent should case studies be given the ‘benefit of the doubt’ in the first REF exercise: if they fail to offer ‘hard evidence’ but can describe a very effective process and some ‘soft’ evidence, how should panels respond?

Generic vs specific advice. • It is acknowledged that, while generic advice can be produced for all panels, each panel will need to develop some specific guidance on what constitutes impact in their disciplines. What are the implications for public engagement? Will each panel need to develop specific PE guidance? What advice / support might be needed offer to help them to do this?

Panel make-up • The pilot recommended that: ‘It is essential to include research users on all REF panels to provide the right balance of expertise in assessing impact and to ensure stakeholder confidence in the outcomes’. What are the implications for public engagement?

CASE STUDIES: AN EXERCISE

• In preparation for the workshop we invite you to select two of the published pilot case studies (provided in a separate document), and to assess them using the following questions, informed by the framework we have outlined above: – Does the case study articulate clearly what the benefits and impacts were from the public engagement activity? – What evidence does if provide to demonstrate that these claimed benefits were actually realised? – Does it clearly articulate how these impacts are underpinned by the research? – Are there any specific issues or challenges in making judgements about the quality of the claimed impacts? How might these be resolved?

THE IMPACT STATEMENT: ASSESSING THE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT

In addition to submitting case studies, each Unit of Assessment will be expected to submit an Impact Statement containing information about how, during the assessment period, the unit has supported and enabled the achievement of impact. The REF team has asked us to consider: – In relation to the broader ‘impact statement’, what kinds of evidence would panels expect to see about a submitted units’ strategy or general approach to engaging the public with its research? Detailed guidance to answer this question is provided in two places: • In the briefings to support the research funders’ publication, ‘The Concordat for Engaging the Public with Research’ (http: //www. rcuk. ac. uk/per/Pages/Concordat. aspx) • One the NCCPE website, in the section dedicated to offering advice and tools to help universities and research institutes to support public engagement effectively (http: //www. publicengagement. ac. uk/support) The following slides provide a brief summary of the key points covered in these resources.

The Concordat describes four key expectations of anyone they fund, listed in the table to the right. UK research organisations have a strategic commitment to public engagement Researchers are recognised and valued for their involvement with public engagement activities. Researchers are enabled to participate in public engagement activities through appropriate training, support and opportunities. The signatories and supporters of this Concordat will undertake regular reviews of their and the wider research sector’s progress in fostering public engagement across the UK.

The NCCPE have developed a complementary self assessment framework to help enhance institutional support for public engagement It has three key focal points PURPOSE Embedding a commitment to Focal points for embedding public engagement in institutional mission and strategy, and championing that commitment at all levels PEOPLE PROCESS Involving staff, students and representatives of the public and using their energy, expertise and feedback to shape the strategy and its delivery Investing in systems and processes that facilitate involvement, maximise impact and help to ensure quality and value for money

PURPOSE Embedding a commitment to Focal points for embedding public engagement in institutional mission and strategy, and championing that commitment at all levels MISSION Create a shared understanding of the purpose, value, meaning and role of public engagement to staff and embed this in your strategy and mission. PEOPLE PROCESS Investing in systems and Involving staff, students and Support champions across the organisation and department who LEADERSHIP processes that facilitate representatives of the public and embrace public engagement involvement, maximise impact using their energy, expertise and help to ensure quality and feedback to shape the strategy Communicate consistent, clear messages to validate, support and value for money and its delivery COMMUNICATION celebrate it, and ensure open and two-way communication with members of the public and community organisations.

Recognise and reward staff involvement within recruitment, promotion, PURPOSE Embedding a commitment to REWARD workload plans and public engagement in performance reviews, and institutional mission and celebrate success with strategy, and championing that awards or prizes. commitment at all levels Co-ordinate the delivery of public engagement to maximise efficiency, target SUPPORT support, improve quality, foster innovation, join up PEOPLE thinking and monitor Involving staff, students and involvement and impact. representatives of the public and Provide opportunities for using their energy, expertise and feedback to shape the strategy learning and reflection and its delivery LEARNING provide support for continuing professional development and training Focal points for embedding public engagement PROCESS Investing in systems and processes that facilitate involvement, maximise impact and help to ensure quality and value for money

PURPOSE Embedding a commitment to Focal points for embedding public engagement in Ensure that all staff – in academic and institutional mission and support roles – have opportunities to strategy, and championing that STAFF commitment at all levels get involved in informal and formal ways. PEOPLE Involving staff, students and representatives of the public and using their energy, expertise and feedback to shape the strategy and its delivery Proactively include and involve students in shaping the mission and in the STUDENTS delivery of the strategy, and maximise PROCESS opportunities for their involvement. Investing in systems and processes that facilitate involvement, maximise impact Invest in people, processes and help to ensure quality and infrastructure to support and nurture value for money PUBLIC the involvement of individuals and organisations external to the HEI