Emma Lancaster:

The Impact at UTS Podcast Series is made by Impact Studios at the University of Technology Sydney, an audio production house funded by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research.

Martin Bliemel:

Research can be a slow burner, it takes time. And the impact and benefits from the research can also take time to be realised. As we’ve discovered, it can involve longterm relationship building and engagement with research partners, be that industry, government or community, but even researchers can get impatient, right? What if you want your work to create change in the world right now? How do you go about it?

Thalia Anthony:

I’d hope that everything I do is translated into some impact. And I think many academics consider their work as contributing to some type of change, whether that’s in science or education or law.

Kate Barclay:

I knew that I did want relationships with people working in the field, and I knew that I did want to work on policy and something much more applied, but I just didn’t really know how to go about it.

Sarah Angus:

I think the benefit of having research and impact and engagement front-of-mind in research is less about what is perceived to be pushed by the government, and more about what is perceived as the benefit to society. So, impact and engagement is not a dirty word, it doesn’t have to mean that research projects are only what the industry partner wants.

Martin Bliemel:

I’m your host, Associate Professor Martin Bliemel, and you’re listening to Impact at UTS. This is our final episode of the series, and you’re going to hear from a law professor whose research is translating into real-world impact today.

Thalia Anthony:

One of the benefits of being in the law faculty at UTS is that it’s got a very strong commitment to social justice, which means that I can choose areas that I’m passionate about and that I believe can make a change in society.

Martin Bliemel:

We’ll hear from a marine social scientist and get some tips on research funding that sits outside the box of traditional research funding.

Kate Barclay:

My work has been very applied. So, rather than coming from the more sort of blue sky research funding, such as in Australia we have the Australian Research Council, my funding has tended to be more from industry organizations.

Martin Bliemel:

And we’re going to get some great advice from distinguished professors and UTS researchers, as well as those we’ve spoken to throughout the series. They’ll also share some pearls of wisdom for early career researchers.

Paul Scully-Power:

I have a rule of life that goes like this, when you come to a fork in the road, take it. But also the flip side of that is, don’t be afraid if you’ve made the wrong decision to go back and take the other path.

Martin Bliemel:

Thalia Anthony is going to kick us off. Thalia is a Professor of Law at UTS, and as well as being at the top of her field, she’s an expert at making her research heard.

Thalia Anthony:

I also appreciate that as bold as I might be in calling for reform in my journal articles, they often don’t see a wide audience. And so, I’m quite conscious of how I then use my research findings to have a greater platform to communicate to the public, whether that be through the media or public forums.

Martin Bliemel:

Thalia’s research is having an impact on policy developments and public debates. She’s also provided research for High Court cases and written submissions for several United Nations Committees. Thalia is not afraid to put her voice where her research is, appearing before several parliamentary inquiries on Indigenous Redress Schemes.

Thalia Anthony:

So for me, it’s just been almost second nature that we should not only identify the injustice, because for me identifying it was a no-brainer. It was starkly clear that we should call it out and we should take action. We should do something about it. And unless we’re doing something about it, we’re complicit in that injustice. So, I’ve always felt that as a human being, relating to the oppression of other humans was very innate, but I have equally felt that we have to not simply be paralysed by that oppression, but we have to be mobilised.

Thalia Anthony:

At UTS it’s got a very strong commitment to social justice, which means that I can choose areas that I’m passionate about. For me that’s always been related to Indigenous issues, racism and colonisation, because I feel that they’re the gravest injustices in our society and in our history.

Martin Bliemel:

Thalia’s expertise is in criminal law procedure, and Indigenous people in the law. Journalist and Impact Studios producer, Cassandra Steeth, spoke to Thalia about how she approaches her work.

Thalia Anthony:

I’d hope that everything I do is translated into some impact. And I think many academics consider their work as contributing to some type of change, whether that’s in science or education or law. I’m really conscious of having the research being translated through accessible means. And the role of opinion pieces, the role of blogs and things like that, have just meant that I’m able to not only reach out to people who are otherwise well-versed in these issues, but other types of audiences.

Thalia Anthony:

We really need to kind of bring everyone on board. And certainly for me, if we hope to have research that’s not only precipitating public debates, but actually being a lever for policy or for judicial decisions or for strengthening organisations on the ground.

Cassandra Steeth:

Recently, your research focused on the need to prevent prisons becoming COVID-19 hotspots. And you argued that the only logical response was decarceration. You and hundreds of other legal experts signed a letter calling on the Australian governments to release prisoners who are most vulnerable to a COVID-19 outbreak. What’s happened in New South Wales since then?

Thalia Anthony:

Yeah, that’s a great and timely question. Just to give it a bit of context. I wrote about this risk quite early on in March. What we were seeing at the time was that prisons internationally were COVID hotspots. And the response of many governments was to release people from prisons because that was the only way to control the outbreak. What we’ve now discovered in the United States for example, is that the rate of COVID infections in prisons is five times the rate in the general population, and that the death rate is three times.

Thalia Anthony:

What occurred in New South Wales as a response to the letter we authored and had many people sign on to, was they introduced emergency laws to enable the release of people from prisons if there was a serious outbreak. So, that meant that the Corrections Commissioner now has the power to release people who fit within certain categories. So, vulnerable people, people who have health conditions, people who are likely to be facing release in the near future anyway, and then people who are a relatively low-risk to the community.

Thalia Anthony:

So, it’s been really positive on one level that we’ve had that level of engagement. But we still feel like there’s a lot more work to do to protect people in prison. So, the job’s not finished yet.

Thalia Anthony:

And on that note, I guess, I just want to say that what’s been a really interesting trend since the pandemic was declared by the World Health Organization in March this year, is that we have seen lower numbers of people in prison. So, as a result of bail, as a result of different policing practices and other reasons, prison numbers in New South Wales and in Victoria have declined by about 10%, which is massive.

Thalia Anthony:

And I actually find that hugely reassuring in the sense that it shows us that we don’t need to have longterm targets for reducing prison rates. We can do things quickly if there is a will. And I think what’s happened over the last six months has shown that we can release people quickly and there isn’t a massive, or any risk, to community safety at all. So, that gives us confidence that decarceration can serve society well.

Cassandra Steeth:

Thalia, how instrumental was your work and that of your colleagues in helping shape the government’s response to COVID-19 in prisons in New South Wales?

Thalia Anthony:

The information I received from people in New South Wales Parliament was that it was a major factor. At the end of the day, within a week of that open letter being released and sent to the New South Wales Attorney-General, we saw that legislation passed.

Cassandra Steeth:

Your work is deeply impactful. It’s had an impact on policy development, public and parliamentary debates. You’ve provided research for High Court cases, United Nation Committees, you’ve conducted research for the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and appeared before several parliamentary inquiries on Indigenous Redress Schemes. And I’m sure I’m missing out a whole bunch of work. But what advice would you give an early career researcher so they can ensure they have a real-world impact in what they do?

Thalia Anthony:

The main advice I would give is to ensure that you have a very clear sense of what your values are that underlie your research, and have those values manifest in the relationships you develop in your research. I would also say that it’s the ability to divide your work in a way that you plan for having contributions, whether they are parliamentary submissions or op-ed pieces in the media, that there is some slack so to speak in your workload for that. So, if you’re constantly thinking about journal articles and you’re working towards those deadlines, you’re simply not going to have the space to commit to other things.

Thalia Anthony:

Be mindful that this kind of public contribution takes time and that you can plan for it in some way, when meeting with your supervisors or when setting work plans. And I think at UTS it’s valued. And so, it absolutely can be accounted for. But it is hard work, it’s time-consuming work.

Thalia Anthony:

And I don’t think, even though it might be an 800-word opinion piece, I don’t think we often consider the amount of thought and research that goes into it. It almost sometimes comes across as a stream of consciousness, but we have to really set aside proper time, be really prepared, and be willing to be scrutinized for those ideas, whether that’s by the media or a parliamentary committee. So, if you’re going to put yourself out there, you’ve got to make sure you’ve done your work, and you’ve got to put aside the time to enable that to happen.

Cassandra Steeth:

Thalia, your research has been informed by field work in Indigenous communities and partnerships with Indigenous legal organizations in Australia and overseas. I’m interested to understand how these collaborations came about, and whether you have any advice on some of the benefits and barriers of research collaborations like you’ve experienced.

Thalia Anthony:

Yeah. I’m going to talk about the barriers first, because I don’t want to come across as someone who is just saying, “Throw yourself into any collaboration.” I actually feel that collaborations can also compromise your academic integrity and your independence.

Thalia Anthony:

And you’ve got to be so careful that you don’t over-commit to other organisations or to industry, and that you’re able to conduct your research in a way that remains completely impartial. And if there’s ever a risk to that impartiality, then you need to step away from the relationship. Because if our work isn’t rigorous and ethical, then we lose our standing as an academic. And especially early career researchers who might be enticed to enter into relationships and become quite primed for them, that there are huge risks to be aware of.

Thalia Anthony:

In terms of the benefits, I think having those relationships means that your work can have so much more impact. In terms of how to develop relationships, I do think it’s about, in the first instance, producing really good work. Organisations value strong research, and if you develop that reputation I think that it will bring people and organisations to you. But it’s also about putting yourself out there, going to the appropriate meetings or forums, and really becoming known within professions. Because there are a lot of academics, and I think developing those personal relationships and connections means that you’re simply on someone’s radar.

Thalia Anthony:

But what I would say in the first instance is to just be very careful about the integrity of your work and to do very rigorous scholarship. And if you can keep true to that, that will then translate into the types of relationships you build. And those relationships will be longterm and sustainable.

Martin Bliemel:

Some great advice from a very dedicated researcher. And I think Professor Thalia Anthony raises a great point. As academics, we have to be prepared to have public conversations about our findings and ideas. This means backing the research we do, but also exchanging knowledge in both directions, between the academy and society, including policy and industry. The ideal case is when this is less transactional and creates value for everyone.

Martin Bliemel:

The reason the industry or policy comes to academia to do research is because we take a much more objective, more methodical approach to finding what the answer to some of these puzzling or wicked problems are. And that means not just taking the funder’s money, doing the research and throwing the results over the wall, but actually understanding the problem space with them, giving them the answers that we’ve found, and then helping them put those answers into practice, so that you’re actually doing the knowledge exchange while you’re doing the research, and afterwards. So, gone are the days of throwing the research over the wall and waiting to see what happens.

Martin Bliemel:

Now, as academics, we’re very aware of the changing landscape facing the higher education sector and what this means for research support and resourcing. We all know about the more conventional research funding sources, like those from the Australian Research Council, but what are some of the alternate ways we can get funding to do the kind of research we want to do? To find out how to fund research in nontraditional ways while maintaining rigor and academic freedom, we spoke to Professor Kate Barclay.

Kate Barclay:

Hi, I’m Kate Barclay. I’m a Professor in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at UTS. And I’m a marine social scientist.

Martin Bliemel:

Kate studies the social aspects of fisheries, aquaculture and marine conservation. Her work in this field led her to be named as a finalist for the UTS Medal for Research Impact in 2019. She’s interested in the social, economic and sustainability aspects of the world’s fisheries.

Kate Barclay:

I look at the social aspects of marine resource use. It’s often fisheries, and tuna fisheries is something I’ve worked on for a long time, especially industrial tuna fisheries. But also small-scale fisheries and aquaculture and marine conservation.

Kate Barclay:

So, the social aspects of that can be say social impacts of fisheries’ development activities. Can also be looking at social and economic contributions of industries to say what fisheries and aquaculture as industries economically contribute to their local communities, and what they contribute culturally and what they contribute socially. It can also be governance issues, I’ve done quite a lot of governance analyses. That can be policies and government frameworks, but it’s also broader things like markets, cultural values, and social norms that affect the way people operate in the marine environment. So, I did have a strong sense that I did want relationships with people working in the field. And I knew that I did want to work on policy and something much more applied.

Martin Bliemel:

What’s interesting about Kate’s work, besides the research, is where she gets the research funding from. Kate recently led a two-year study funded by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, FRDC, and the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries. And she’s also working with a philanthropic foundation based in the US to understand the social benefits from tuna fisheries in Indonesia and the Solomon Islands.

Kate Barclay:

My work has been very applied. So, rather than coming from blue sky research funding, such as in Australia we have the Australian Research Council, my funding has tended to be more from industry organisations like the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation of Australia, which is partly industry money and it would summit by Commonwealth Government counterpart funding. So, that’s very directly connected to industry.

Kate Barclay:

Some other funding I’ve had is say from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, so that’s a philanthropic foundation from the Packard family, that’s a US-based organisation. I’ve done a little bit of work in the past for the World Bank, they wanted a gender analysis of fisheries in Solomon Islands a few years ago.

Kate Barclay:

Done a little bit of work for the European Parliament, when a few years ago they wanted to know about the social impacts of tuna fisheries in Papua New Guinea that are targeting European markets, and which come under a European trade agreement. So, the European Parliament wanted to know what were the impacts of the fisheries they were supporting through their trade agreement.

Cassandra Steeth:

What’s your general advice on how researchers can get funding to do the work that they really want to do?

Kate Barclay:

I guess to be working in an area that you’re interested in, that there are organizations also working in that area, and to reach out to them and see what sorts of research they might find useful. And even though they might not be able to fund you themselves, if they’re an NGO or some other kind of organization that’s a bit cash-strapped, if you can be working with them to develop a useful project, someone else might fund it because they like the idea. I mean, there’s always ARC Linkage funding that you can go for if you’re working with an industry partner as well.

Kate Barclay:

So, I think reaching out to organizations and finding mutual interests and seeing what they would find useful is probably the best advice I can give, to starting to get into this area where you’re doing work that organizations outside of the university want to use and are willing to pay for.

Cassandra Steeth:

How do you balance the needs of academic freedom and critical inquiry with the wants of external partners who may be co-designing research with you?

Kate Barclay:

Well, what we’ve found so far anyway with the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation work we’ve been doing, is that the industry partners have come to us because they want something that will stand up to criticism. They could get a consultant to say what they want to say. If you’re not going to be thoroughly robust about it, it’s cheaper. So they could do that. But what they wanted was something that will stand up to scrutiny. And that if anyone wants to cast doubt on the numbers that come up or the conclusions from the analysis, they say, “It’s been peer reviewed, it’s been done by these methods by independent researchers.” So, there are cases where that’s actually what they want from you.

Cassandra Steeth:

There is an increasingly strong argument for researchers to have a relationship with industry, government or community. I’m really interested to understand Kate, how you ensure academic freedom and maintain your independence as a researcher when you’re conducting engaged research.

Kate Barclay:

Oh, that’s definitely a struggle. But a tenured position in a university helps. What I mean by it being a struggle is that when you’re doing work, say that’s commissioned by a government organization, and you’re commental on their work as a government organization and they don’t necessarily like what you’re saying, that’s tricky, there’s no doubt about it. And if I didn’t have a tenured position, if I also didn’t have other research work that doesn’t rely just on that one relationship, you’d be under quite a lot of pressure.

Kate Barclay:

But having a tenured position and having a spread of different research relationships and different engagements mean I can sort of be independent to the point where if a particular body doesn’t necessarily like what I write, I can stand by it and say, “We’ve done the best job we can to be independent.” And base everything on the evidence here and say, “Call it how we see it. And if you don’t like it and you don’t want to employ me ever again, then so be it.”

Cassandra Steeth:

How do you communicate what may be quite inconvenient truths that emerge from your research when you’re funded by governments who have the agenda of, let’s say, keeping a population employed? And in your case, the fisheries who are clearly pushing the interests for their industry?

Kate Barclay:

Try and be as evidence-based as possible. And sort of retreating into academic conventions is good in a sense, because you retreat into very academic dry language, but also balanced language, trying to be fair and respectful of everyone. But also, you go back to the data and say, “This is what it says.” That’s the main way that so far I’ve tried to approach inconvenient truths, is to stick to what the research says and stick to a very research-oriented way of communicating.

Cassandra Steeth:

Great approach I say. Now, what’s your approach to producing engaged and impactful research, Kate?

Kate Barclay:

One of the things that I’ve done in a few projects that I’ve really liked, and I want to continue on with it where possible, because you’re sometimes restricted with funding or other kinds of rules about how you do the project, is having something called inception workshops, and then culmination workshops or feedback workshops. And in those inception workshops, so at the beginning of a project and you get a bunch of stakeholders together and you co-design the research essentially. You ask them how it should go forward and what are the important things to consider. Rather than doing it yourself with the literature, which is perhaps this more conventional way of doing it.

Kate Barclay:

But then even more important, after you’ve done the research and you’ve got your preliminary findings, take that back to stakeholders again, be they communities or where they fishing industry people or government people, or a mixture. And say, “This is what we’ve found.” Give presentations and say, “This is what we’ve found. How does that seem to you?” And give them a chance to comment on it and give feedback, because it can help in a factual sense or a content sense sometimes, something that you’ve misunderstood a bit they can shed light on. But it also helps you understand what might be effective ways to communicate it and that sort of thing. So, feedback workshops before you’d finalise the writing up I find really useful and I’d like to keep doing those.

Kate Barclay:

Another thing that we’ve been doing with a few projects is to not just write academic papers or not just write the reports, but trying to also do other forms of output. So, it’s like fact sheets or summary sheets with infographics. Or we’re looking at doing a small video for one of our projects to circulate on social media. So, some other forms of communication in additional to the more conventional ones of reports and journal articles.

Cassandra Steeth:

And what advice would you give to an early career researcher who’s looking to conduct impact-led research?

Kate Barclay:

I think probably something that can really help is if you can get in with a group, including mentors and established people who work that way. Because I sort of stumbled through myself, and that’s fine, but it meant it was much slower. And when I see people who work say in places like the Institute for Sustainable Futures, or a place where I did a sabbatical last year at the University of Wageningen in the Netherlands, and they have an environmental policy unit and I was there.

Kate Barclay:

They work on this kind of stuff as well and they get funding from different places and they do quite a lot of applied research. And I see the people who come through there, they can sort of step straight into that kind of research at an early career researcher level, because they’ve got the more established people around them and the networks and the know-how around them about how to do this kind of work.

Kate Barclay:

So I mean, it might be that you just have to take a job where I could `get a job, especially in the very competitive environment university sector. But if you can possibly get a job that’s in one of those units that already does that kind of work, I think that really helps.

Cassandra Steeth:

What do you think makes a piece of research meaningful, Kate?

Kate Barclay:

One of the ways that I understand a really excellent piece of research is when if you can zoom in and zoom out and it’s still excellent at both levels. So if you look at the broad picture, it is tackling an important problem, a significant problem. And then if you go into the detail, you zoom into the detail, they’ve covered all the bases and they’ve done everything in a robust way, looked at all the literature properly, all of that sort of thing. So that it makes sense on that very granular level, but it also is tackling a useful problem in a useful way at the larger scale.

Martin Bliemel:

It’s important to remember when it comes to engaged and impactful research, you don’t have to do it alone. There are lots of experienced and helpful people around the university who are here to help enable you and support your research. One of these sources of support is your faculty research engagement manager, also known as FREM. To understand how a FREM can help you, we’re speaking to Sarah Angus.

Sarah Angus:

My name’s Sarah Angus, I’m Faculty Research Engagement Manager for UTS Business School. I kind of call myself a fixer. So, how do I fix the situation for the advantage of the academic?

Martin Bliemel:

As Sarah’s title suggests, her job as the Faculty Research Engagement Manager includes helping you identify new avenues for research funding. There are five people across UTS who have a similar job to Sarah.

Sarah Angus:

I am here to help academics with the process of funding, which includes our internal processes, collaborations, both internal and external, and outreach to industry as needed. Most of my job is about trying to create ways to help academics if there’s funding or if there’s a way we could present their work for the chance of funding. Trying to be creative in the idea of creating a diverse portfolio of funding for any academic or program of research, because that may offer them different ways of funding their research in this kind of more unusual and more tightly-funded environment.

Cassandra Steeth:

We know that the days of publishing work that doesn’t have a real-world impact are limited or gone altogether. Is there anything you’d like to say to researchers right now about why they should have impact and engagement front-of-mind in their research?

Sarah Angus:

I think the benefit of having research in impact and engagement front-of-mind in research is less about what is perceived to be pushed by the governments, and more about what is perceived as the benefit to society. So, impact and engagement is not a dirty word. It doesn’t have to mean that research projects are only what the industry partner wants and are only delivering to the community that that industry partner represents. I don’t think that’s the way it has to be. You can have a portfolio of work that represents both blue sky direct impact and broad value for your research.

Cassandra Steeth:

Okay. So, in some ways your job is kind of about helping the researcher engage, whether it’s helping them with their contracts or funding applications

Sarah Angus:

Very much so. And funny enough, I do think of my role as almost like a translator. So, translator in that academic may say, “I want to do a lit review.” Whereas I know, having worked in industry, I don’t really want to hear about a lit review because that doesn’t tell me what any benefit for me. I want to hear about, “I’m doing a scoping survey to understand better the landscape in which the research will be implemented.” And probably a fixer in that oftentimes the needs of the partner versus the academic are close, but trying to bring them together in a way that creates a benefit for both of them, but also means that some really cool research can happen.

Cassandra Steeth:

What do researchers need to be mindful of when they’re collaborating with industry and government and other external stakeholders?

Sarah Angus:

It’s the difference in timelines. For academics when collaborating with external academia, it’s a cultural difference. And I think that external stakeholders do expect a different delivery, to timelines, to expectations, to promises. So therefore, it is a process of building a relationship that understands what can be delivered, what can’t be delivered, what timelines should be expected, the opportunities that are possible, what research can deliver to, and what research cannot deliver to.

Sarah Angus:

And it’s also one key thing I think academics and industry can do better in speaking with each other, is understanding there is a benefit to both sides. There is a benefit to the slower process of research, considering a history and a long impact. But there’s also a benefit to understanding enough from a business perspective and making a decision and going forward.

Martin Bliemel:

FREMs don’t just provide functional support. They’re genuinely helpful to talk to about ideas you want to pursue and the impact you want to have. To find out who the FREM or relevant contact is in your faculty, head over to our show notes page.

Martin Bliemel:

At UTS, we’re incredibly lucky. We’ve got some of the best brains in the business working on cutting-edge, independent, socially-driven and impactful research. So, I thought that the best way to wrap up our Impact at UTS season one would be to pull out some concluding pointers from our guests. Distinguished professors, professional staff, and research rock stars.

Martin Bliemel:

Throughout the series we asked each of them what advice they would give to an early career researcher who is looking to make an impact. They might no longer be ECRs, but they’ve definitely accumulated decades of evidence and insights from the research, but also heaps of experience about how to do research. Here they are drawing on that experience to share some pearls of wisdom with us now.

Thalia Anthony:

The main advice I would give is to ensure that you have a very clear sense of what your values are that underlie your research. And have those values manifest in the relationships you develop.

Julian Zipparo:

What’s important and what motivates researchers is we want to solve problems and we want to improve society. We kind of get frightened by change in higher education, and we are change-resistant it’s fair to say. All changes have positives and negatives. But to me, the shift towards thinking about the benefit of our work can only be a good thing.

David Suggett:

I’ve definitely buried my ego in the last 10 years or so. I’ve transitioned from a talker to a listener, and I think that’s also been very important. Academics know a lot, or they like to think they know a lot about their specific subjects, but I can guarantee there’s other people out there that know way more. And quite often, where that comes from will surprise you.

Paul Scully-Power:

It’s actually very, very simple. I have a rule of life that goes like this. When you come to a fork in the road, take it. But also, the flip side of that is don’t be afraid if you’ve made the wrong decision to go back and take the other paths.

Michael Blumenstein:

Very true. Those opportunities, even though they might not result in success, it’s building the character to get to the next success, and I think we’ve got to take opportunities and risks. And in research it’s more important now than ever to do that.

Cameron Tokinwise:

I think telling or showing and demonstrating early career researchers that collaboration is difficult and never becomes easy because those differences are structural and embodied, is really important. It takes time. It takes nothing but time.

Claude Roux:

You need to work hands-in-hands with the end users, so it’s an ongoing thing, it’s not just a one transaction. So definitely, it’s much more than just research for end users, it’s really research with end users.

Gamini Dissanayake:

Relationships are the key. I think, I mean, what we’ve found is that once you build up a relationship and you deliver the outcomes the industry partner is expecting, these things can grow from there.

Larissa Behrendt:

It’s trite to say it, but I really get so much strength from the communities. I pick up the phone and talk to one of our community members about what their kids are doing or something, and I feel a part of a community. I see how they’re living their lives and we’ve been a part of that. And there is a sense that makes you feel like you’re grounded and you belong and people respect you, and there’s a space where people appreciate who you are and value what you’ve done.

Stuart White:

I think the future of research and the future of the higher education sector is such that that’s not just a recommendation. It’s not just a good thing to do. I think it will be increasingly an essential thing to do. I think the days of a traditional lock-step progression of an academic through a standard career were already starting to disappear and change in the post-COVID era. I think that’s going to accelerate.

Stuart White:

Obviously the higher education sector, particularly in Australia, is suffering from a significant shake up as a result of COVID. We’ve yet to see how that will emerge, but hopefully we will not lose the importance and the need for researchers and for academics to engage with the issues and problems that we need to face in the world, including of COVID. But also the broader sustainability issues, equity, justice, environmental degradation, climate change, all of these things.

Martin Bliemel:

It can also sound pretty daunting to attempt to do all of that yourself and to be the perfect collaborator. That’s a lot of pressure. One important thing I would add would be to play to your strengths, find collaborators in academia or practice, and form a team around a particular phenomenon or set of research questions. Also, by being a member in multiple teams can sometimes cross pollinate insights from one team to another and maximise everyone’s impact.

Martin Bliemel:

I hope we have helped you in some way think differently about how engagement and impactful research can be part of your research career here at UTS. Now, more than ever, we need to take risk, be bold, and rethink what research we do, how it’s done, and what impact we want it to have. All of that could mean taking a little more risk, being bolder, and embedding engagement right into your research. Remember, that engagement maximizes the chances of impact and real outcomes.

Martin Bliemel:

In my time as an academic, we’ve seen a seismic shift in how universities are funded and how our success is measured. It sounds simple, but we should always make time to ask ourselves, “Why is it that we do what we do?” And not lose sight of the fact that the knowledge our research generates can transform society and reshape the world for the better.

Martin Bliemel:

Collaborating with industry, government, and broader society is becoming the future of university research in Australia. So how do we do it? How do we plan for impact from the very beginning of our academic careers? How do we engage with industries, communities, and governments to do the work we not only want to do, but the work society needs us to do? Well, I have no doubt that you, my colleague, will find the right answers.

Martin Bliemel:

I’m your host, Associate Professor, Martin Bliemel. You’ve been listening to Impact at UTS. And don’t forget, if you’re a UTS staff member and you’re interested to learn more about research, impact and engagement, head over to the UTS RES Hub website, reshub.uts.edu.au, where you’ll find more information and helpful tools.

Speaker 1:

At Impact Studios we work with the best scholars to embed audio in the research process, making one of a kind podcasts that entertain, inspire and create change. The production team live on the lands of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, whose lands were never ceded.

Speaker 1:

Thanks to everyone who made this series possible. To our resident impact and engagement expert, Julian Zipparo, for the brains trust in the UTS Research Office, including Catherine McElhone and Scott McWhirter. Thanks for all your erudite thoughts and comments. To our wonderful host, associate professor Martin Bliemel. And of course the team at Impact Studios, Cassandra Steeth, journalist and audio producer, Allison Chan, audio producer, Adrian Walton and Frank Lopez, our sound engineers, Ben Vozzo, Impact manager, executive producer, Emma Lancaster, and Impact Studios managing director, Tamson Pietsch.