An official website of the United States government
Achieving societal impact, as opposed to academic impact, is a growing area of focus for the research community globally. Central to this changing mission is the focus on multiple interconnected complex systems and the need for research that is not just interdisciplinary, but also transdisciplinary and grounded in stakeholder co-production. This document compares multiple approaches to impact planning and evaluation across four newly formed urban living labs in Sao Paolo (Brazil), Western Cape (South Africa), Bristol (UK) and Rotterdam (Netherlands), each of which sought to address societal issues linked to the food-energy-water nexus. A comparison matrix and a disaggregated impact table are derived from a comprehensive review of key definitions. These new tools were completed by each ULL alongside a post hoc pathway to impact statements. Comparisons are presented and discussed, the strengths and weaknesses of this approach are considered and opportunities for improvement in societal impact planning and evaluation are provided. Our main findings include the importance of establishing clear shared definitions while accepting plural understandings, the need to acknowledge resource as a critical factor in impact delivery and the headline need for far greater focus in this area from both funders and research groups.
more »
« less
Publishing for Impact: Interdisciplinary Reflections
The term research impact is variously defined in academic scholarship, by national and international research funding bodies, publishers, and other relevant entities, although common definitional elements exist. Concise definitions describe the term as relating to academic research that directly and or indirectly guides policymaking processes, by enabling evidence-based decision-making and or improving understanding of a given subject area or areas [1] . Underlying this and all definitions of research impact is the fundamental assumption that the outcome(s) of university research will serve the “public good” [2, p. 1368] .
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1828010
- PAR ID:
- 10514457
- Publisher / Repository:
- IEEE
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society
- Volume:
- 4
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 2637-6415
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 201 to 217
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Deceptive design practices are increasingly used by companies to extract profit, harvest data, and limit consumer choice. Dark patterns represent the most common contemporary amalgamation of these problematic practices, connecting designers, technologists, scholars, regulators, and legal professionals in transdisciplinary dialogue. However, a lack of universally accepted definitions across the academic, legislative and regulatory space has likely limited the impact that scholarship on dark patterns might have in supporting sanctions and evolved design practices. In this late breaking work, we seek to harmonize regulatory and academic taxonomies of dark patterns, proposing a preliminary three-level ontology to create a shared language that supports translational research and regulatory action. We identify potential directions for scholarship and social impact building upon this ontology.more » « less
-
Deceptive and coercive design practices are increasingly used by companies to extract profit, harvest data, and limit consumer choice. Dark patterns represent the most common contemporary amalgamation of these problematic practices, connecting designers, technologists, scholars, regulators, and legal professionals in transdisciplinary dialogue. However, a lack of universally accepted definitions across the academic, legislative, practitioner, and regulatory space has likely limited the impact that scholarship on dark patterns might have in supporting sanctions and evolved design practices. In this paper, we seek to support the development of a shared language of dark patterns, harmonizing ten existing regulatory and academic taxonomies of dark patterns and proposing a three-level ontology with standardized definitions for 64 synthesized dark pattern types across low-, meso-, and high-level patterns. We illustrate how this ontology can support translational research and regulatory action, including transdisciplinary pathways to extend our initial types through new empirical work across application and technology domains.more » « less
-
Chaudhuri, Kamalika; Jegelka, Stefanie; Song, Le; Szepesvari, Csaba; Niu, Gang; Sabato, Sivan (Ed.)Recent work highlights the role of causality in designing equitable decision-making algorithms. It is not immediately clear, however, how existing causal conceptions of fairness relate to one another, or what the consequences are of using these definitions as design principles. Here, we first assemble and categorize popular causal definitions of algorithmic fairness into two broad families: (1) those that constrain the effects of decisions on counterfactual disparities; and (2) those that constrain the effects of legally protected characteristics, like race and gender, on decisions. We then show, analytically and empirically, that both families of definitions almost always—in a measure theoretic sense—result in strongly Pareto dominated decision policies, meaning there is an alternative, unconstrained policy favored by every stakeholder with preferences drawn from a large, natural class. For example, in the case of college admissions decisions, policies constrained to satisfy causal fairness definitions would be disfavored by every stakeholder with neutral or positive preferences for both academic preparedness and diversity. Indeed, under a prominent definition of causal fairness, we prove the resulting policies require admitting all students with the same probability, regardless of academic qualifications or group membership. Our results highlight formal limitations and potential adverse consequences of common mathematical notions of causal fairness.more » « less
-
IntroductionCommunity Engaged Learning (CEL) is recognized for its positive impact on student development in higher education. This meta-analysis examined the effects of CEL on academic, personal, social, and citizenship outcomes among college students. MethodsStudies were identified through PsycINFO, PsycArticles, and ERIC, and were included if they met the following criteria: peer-reviewed English-language publications from 2017 to 2024, alignment with widely accepted definitions of CEL, inclusion of a control group, and sufficient data to calculate effect sizes. Random-effects models were used to estimate Hedges's g, a standardized measure of effect size, for each outcome domain. ResultsOur results showed that CEL had a statistically significant, small to medium effect on academic outcomes (Hedges'sg= 0.344, 95% CI [0.190, 0.497],p< 0.001) and social outcomes (Hedges'sg= 0.371, 95% CI [0.167, 0.575],p< 0.001). The effect on citizenship outcomes was small but significant (Hedges'sg= 0.220, 95% CI [0.096, 0.344],p= 0.001). For personal outcomes, the effect was moderate (Hedges'sg= 0.694, 95% CI [−0.089, 1.477]) but not statistically significant (p= 0.082). The substantial variability observed across studies suggests that differences in CEL implementation, program focus, and student populations may influence outcomes. ConclusionOverall, our findings highlight CEL as an impactful pedagogy that contributes to academic success, personal growth, and civic engagement. Further research may explore the long-term impacts of CEL and identify specific program components that enhance its effectiveness.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1109/tts.2023.3318396
