Building ventilation and healthy lives in Scotland

Spare a thought for REF sub-panel members who find themselves up against dozens of impact case studies – with probably just a few minutes to read and evaluate each.

Which of those case studies will stick in their minds? Most likely the ones that tell a strong story in clear, accessible language  – and explain convincingly why that story matters.

That’s what our example from the University of Strathclyde (the only HEI in the country to achieve a clean sweep of 4* impact case studies in UoA13) does extremely well. In this short Masterclass, I’ll be picking out just a handful of aspects that make the narrative compelling.

An engaging problem statement

We’re dealing with Scottish common law, policy, public health advice and building regulations here. But the authors are setting us up to care – through a cleverly crafted problem statement at the beginning of Section 2, which is by far the best place for it.

That problem statement (also known as a context paragraph) tells us why the research (and by extension its impacts) were so important: Scottish homes are more air-tight and warmer now than they were before World War II, but that comfort has come at a price: a sixfold increase in the prevalence of asthma among Scottish children, and a significant rise in child deaths due to acute asthma attacks. The researchers at Strathclyde set out to understand and address the causes of this increase.

From here on I, as a reader, am paying attention. Because the authors have made it clear why their research matters out in the real world.

Clear, accessible English

After this, Section 2 outlines the underpinning research in clear, generally accessible English that can be read and absorbed fairly quickly.

Such accessibility is key. An impact case study needs to be designed for quick reading and assessment – much as we may resent that idea after spending years crafting it.

And sub-panel members, whilst they’re all heavyweights in the subject area covered by the UoA, may not have any detailed expertise in your particular area of research.

This also means that any acronyms that may be unfamiliar to them should be spelled out the first time they occur in the text. Our three Strathclyde researchers  – Stirling Howieson, Paul Tuohy and Tim Sharpe – do this meticulously.

That said, I usually advise impact case study authors to go easy on the use of acronyms. Referring to the ‘HO’ rather than the Home Office saves you very little space on the page, but a text studded with this kind of optional acronym is much less reader-friendly.

A clear layout

By the same token, a clear layout with sub-heads and white spaces will make it easier for the panel to find their way around the text. The Strathclyde case study might have benefited from using white spaces and breaking up the text into shorter paragraphs a little more, particularly in Section 4, which is rather densely packed.

However, the authors use sub-heads to good effect: in Section 2, these give an instant, clear overview of the three strands of underpinning research undertaken.

In Section 4, they provide an equally clear indication of the three main impact areas – protecting occupant health by influencing Scottish common law, shaping UK government policy  and public health advice to reduce Covid 19 transmissions, and informing building regulations and industry guidance.

These areas are also summarised at the beginning of the section, providing a handy and systematic overview of what’s coming.

Powerful quotes

The Strathclyde case study authors are taking care to provide plenty of quantitative and qualitative impact evidence in the text in Section 4 – including some impressive metrics, such as no fewer than 1,500 legal cases to which Stirling Howieson applied his expertise, with referrals from over 50 law firms.

For qualitative evidence, the text relies on a fair number of beneficiary quotes, some of them quite chunky – but never gratuitously so. All quotes are carefully chosen to illustrate and evidence the Reach and Significance of the impacts achieved.

So how do you generate a useful beneficiary quote, one that contains enough granular impact evidence to satisfy the panel?

Suggesting a suitable form of words to beneficiaries has become common practice. A practice, though, that has mushroomed – to such an extent that some government departments are no longer playing ball. One former civil servant told me that some of the letters he’d been asked to sign contained vastly inflated impact claims.

 If your beneficiary is unwilling to provide a letter, plan B is to gather your evidence through an interview. This needs to be conducted with care to make sure that the beneficiary spells out all the right facts. And ideally, some argue, it should be conducted by someone independent, rather than the researchers themselves.

Don’t put your light under a bushel

But back to Strathclyde. For a reader who cares about those children affected by asthma, Section 4 provides plenty of positive outcomes: for example, we learn that people at the bottom end of the socio-economic spectrum have successfully pursued housing claims in the courts, thanks to Dr Howieson’s knowledge, skills and expertise.

If anything, the case study makes light of those people as a beneficiary group, and of some other groups, such as law firms. They are mentioned, but almost as an aside and with no headline of their own. And as this case study is so rich in impact, the authors clearly got away with that.

Others may need be well advised to lay out each group or organisation that has benefited from their research a lot more carefully. Either way, in the case of our Strathclyde example, the sub-panel clearly got the message: the Reach and Significance of the impacts demonstrated are impressive, and the 4* rating appears well-deserved.