| . | Stage 0: Set-up . | Stage 1: Interviews . | Stage 2: Interviews . | Stage 3: Mapping . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation | While for the purpose of this study it is important to have both an emic and etic perspective, the actual act of contribution mapping required inside knowledge from the beginning of the project. A project manager would be better suited to doing this than an external research team as they are already cognizant of the project details. | The use of too much structure during the interview process results in very stilted answers. Semi-structured interviews are better suited. | While institutions were specifically chosen to participate (R1), a project often appears to be reliant on a particular person in the consortium rather than the institution itself. Should that person leave, there is the potential for the commitment to the project. The role changes with a new person and appears to often lose momentum (M1, R1, V1, G1). | The outcome of the mapping is very flat and does not meet our expectations. Perhaps are expectations were too high but we had hoped to see a rich tapestry that told the viewer the story of the project. |
| Set up often consists of negotiations with potential stakeholders and getting partners on board, a process that is highly dependent on networks. Content is less prominent (U1, U2, R1, M1, G1). | Participants often have differing experiences, focuses, and ideas about their roles and that of others in the project (U2, M1, V1, G1, R2). | How funding is divided and who specifically gets this funding is very backwards. The stakeholders are expected to give in-kind. The partners who do not get funding appear to have less influence on the project (G1, R1, V1). The stakeholders are in an environment that pays attention to the numbers and hours, while you as a researcher just want to seize opportunities yourself. As a result, the people in the project sometimes had to go back to their managers and financial departments to see, for example, how the project could be (co)financed (R1). |
| |
| The project team wanted to create more research output than their project budget and time allowed. They intend to continue creating some of these things without a project extension (R1, U2, U1, M1, G1). | The continuation of the extension Phase beyond the output is reliant on the person involved and their commitment (U2). | The context of the processes does not show well. | ||
| Covid 19 clearly influenced the project. Rules and regulations made it difficult to meet and continue as planned (U2, R2, M1). | Many activities were done to ensure a scientific basis for the project. However, changes needed to be made in order to fit with the ‘practice’ and accomplish something for them (M1). However, it is necessary to have and build a common understanding with stakeholders who work on the project to make a positive, supported, impactful project (U1, R2, M1). | There are many different routes that are sometimes interlinked and dependent on some of the partners. | ||
| There are people who primarily work as internal networkers in their own organization to make the institutional participation and the importance of the project internally recognized (U1, V1). There are some people who are primarily busy with the stakeholders and external partners to bring the project further (connectors) (R2, M1). There are very few who work as both, but these people seem to serve as translators (G1, R2). This does not appear to be a conscious decision but is the result of the demands of the project, partners and circumstances, as well as the skills of the translator. The link to Education appears to be dependent on particular participants organizing the participation while others are responsible for ensuring it happens (U1). | The use of a preconceived line of impact can be impossible to predict from the beginning. The twists and turns that the process takes cannot be predicted. Direct and indirect impacts also need to be accounted for. Indirect impact can be more important in the long run than the direct impact (R1). | |||
| Maximum impact is not purely about what the direct results are of this project but through being an ambassador for the method the impact of the project is maximized. This reiterates the importance of people in creating impact (R1). | ||||
| Challenges | Even though it was practice based research, the translation and shift from academia to actual practice was difficult (V1, G1, U2, R2). | The calendar agendas and research agendas differ between the different actors of the project (G1, M1, U1). This is something that should be discussed at the beginning of the project and can make it difficult to include students in the projects (M1, R2). | How do we make it not so linear? | |
| The exiting of partners and introduction of new people into a project directly affects the flow and continuity of a project. It also influences the mapping process (U1, U2, R1, R2). | The exiting and introduction of new people into a project directly affects the flow and continuity of a project. It also has a result on the mapping process (G1, M1, V1). | |||
| Limitation | Participants found it difficult to identify themselves in the roles of the Contribution Mapping methodology (U1, R2). | Participants did not understand the language of the Contribution Mapping framework (M1, V1, G1). | The actual mapping of the interviews and the overlap made it difficult to separate the individual stories from each other and to connect to each other. | |
| Participants did not find themselves in the types of roles available in the framework. It was too structured for them. (M1, V1, G1, R2). | The whole process is extremely time intensive. | |||
| Modification | Should be real-time to meet the criteria for UAS research impact evaluation and executed by an internal research/project manager. | Addition or modification of the roles and terminology. | Addition of extra information over stakeholders, impact level, context or the like. |
| . | Stage 0: Set-up . | Stage 1: Interviews . | Stage 2: Interviews . | Stage 3: Mapping . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation | While for the purpose of this study it is important to have both an emic and etic perspective, the actual act of contribution mapping required inside knowledge from the beginning of the project. A project manager would be better suited to doing this than an external research team as they are already cognizant of the project details. | The use of too much structure during the interview process results in very stilted answers. Semi-structured interviews are better suited. | While institutions were specifically chosen to participate (R1), a project often appears to be reliant on a particular person in the consortium rather than the institution itself. Should that person leave, there is the potential for the commitment to the project. The role changes with a new person and appears to often lose momentum (M1, R1, V1, G1). | The outcome of the mapping is very flat and does not meet our expectations. Perhaps are expectations were too high but we had hoped to see a rich tapestry that told the viewer the story of the project. |
| Set up often consists of negotiations with potential stakeholders and getting partners on board, a process that is highly dependent on networks. Content is less prominent (U1, U2, R1, M1, G1). | Participants often have differing experiences, focuses, and ideas about their roles and that of others in the project (U2, M1, V1, G1, R2). | How funding is divided and who specifically gets this funding is very backwards. The stakeholders are expected to give in-kind. The partners who do not get funding appear to have less influence on the project (G1, R1, V1). The stakeholders are in an environment that pays attention to the numbers and hours, while you as a researcher just want to seize opportunities yourself. As a result, the people in the project sometimes had to go back to their managers and financial departments to see, for example, how the project could be (co)financed (R1). |
| |
| The project team wanted to create more research output than their project budget and time allowed. They intend to continue creating some of these things without a project extension (R1, U2, U1, M1, G1). | The continuation of the extension Phase beyond the output is reliant on the person involved and their commitment (U2). | The context of the processes does not show well. | ||
| Covid 19 clearly influenced the project. Rules and regulations made it difficult to meet and continue as planned (U2, R2, M1). | Many activities were done to ensure a scientific basis for the project. However, changes needed to be made in order to fit with the ‘practice’ and accomplish something for them (M1). However, it is necessary to have and build a common understanding with stakeholders who work on the project to make a positive, supported, impactful project (U1, R2, M1). | There are many different routes that are sometimes interlinked and dependent on some of the partners. | ||
| There are people who primarily work as internal networkers in their own organization to make the institutional participation and the importance of the project internally recognized (U1, V1). There are some people who are primarily busy with the stakeholders and external partners to bring the project further (connectors) (R2, M1). There are very few who work as both, but these people seem to serve as translators (G1, R2). This does not appear to be a conscious decision but is the result of the demands of the project, partners and circumstances, as well as the skills of the translator. The link to Education appears to be dependent on particular participants organizing the participation while others are responsible for ensuring it happens (U1). | The use of a preconceived line of impact can be impossible to predict from the beginning. The twists and turns that the process takes cannot be predicted. Direct and indirect impacts also need to be accounted for. Indirect impact can be more important in the long run than the direct impact (R1). | |||
| Maximum impact is not purely about what the direct results are of this project but through being an ambassador for the method the impact of the project is maximized. This reiterates the importance of people in creating impact (R1). | ||||
| Challenges | Even though it was practice based research, the translation and shift from academia to actual practice was difficult (V1, G1, U2, R2). | The calendar agendas and research agendas differ between the different actors of the project (G1, M1, U1). This is something that should be discussed at the beginning of the project and can make it difficult to include students in the projects (M1, R2). | How do we make it not so linear? | |
| The exiting of partners and introduction of new people into a project directly affects the flow and continuity of a project. It also influences the mapping process (U1, U2, R1, R2). | The exiting and introduction of new people into a project directly affects the flow and continuity of a project. It also has a result on the mapping process (G1, M1, V1). | |||
| Limitation | Participants found it difficult to identify themselves in the roles of the Contribution Mapping methodology (U1, R2). | Participants did not understand the language of the Contribution Mapping framework (M1, V1, G1). | The actual mapping of the interviews and the overlap made it difficult to separate the individual stories from each other and to connect to each other. | |
| Participants did not find themselves in the types of roles available in the framework. It was too structured for them. (M1, V1, G1, R2). | The whole process is extremely time intensive. | |||
| Modification | Should be real-time to meet the criteria for UAS research impact evaluation and executed by an internal research/project manager. | Addition or modification of the roles and terminology. | Addition of extra information over stakeholders, impact level, context or the like. |
| . | Stage 0: Set-up . | Stage 1: Interviews . | Stage 2: Interviews . | Stage 3: Mapping . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation | While for the purpose of this study it is important to have both an emic and etic perspective, the actual act of contribution mapping required inside knowledge from the beginning of the project. A project manager would be better suited to doing this than an external research team as they are already cognizant of the project details. | The use of too much structure during the interview process results in very stilted answers. Semi-structured interviews are better suited. | While institutions were specifically chosen to participate (R1), a project often appears to be reliant on a particular person in the consortium rather than the institution itself. Should that person leave, there is the potential for the commitment to the project. The role changes with a new person and appears to often lose momentum (M1, R1, V1, G1). | The outcome of the mapping is very flat and does not meet our expectations. Perhaps are expectations were too high but we had hoped to see a rich tapestry that told the viewer the story of the project. |
| Set up often consists of negotiations with potential stakeholders and getting partners on board, a process that is highly dependent on networks. Content is less prominent (U1, U2, R1, M1, G1). | Participants often have differing experiences, focuses, and ideas about their roles and that of others in the project (U2, M1, V1, G1, R2). | How funding is divided and who specifically gets this funding is very backwards. The stakeholders are expected to give in-kind. The partners who do not get funding appear to have less influence on the project (G1, R1, V1). The stakeholders are in an environment that pays attention to the numbers and hours, while you as a researcher just want to seize opportunities yourself. As a result, the people in the project sometimes had to go back to their managers and financial departments to see, for example, how the project could be (co)financed (R1). |
| |
| The project team wanted to create more research output than their project budget and time allowed. They intend to continue creating some of these things without a project extension (R1, U2, U1, M1, G1). | The continuation of the extension Phase beyond the output is reliant on the person involved and their commitment (U2). | The context of the processes does not show well. | ||
| Covid 19 clearly influenced the project. Rules and regulations made it difficult to meet and continue as planned (U2, R2, M1). | Many activities were done to ensure a scientific basis for the project. However, changes needed to be made in order to fit with the ‘practice’ and accomplish something for them (M1). However, it is necessary to have and build a common understanding with stakeholders who work on the project to make a positive, supported, impactful project (U1, R2, M1). | There are many different routes that are sometimes interlinked and dependent on some of the partners. | ||
| There are people who primarily work as internal networkers in their own organization to make the institutional participation and the importance of the project internally recognized (U1, V1). There are some people who are primarily busy with the stakeholders and external partners to bring the project further (connectors) (R2, M1). There are very few who work as both, but these people seem to serve as translators (G1, R2). This does not appear to be a conscious decision but is the result of the demands of the project, partners and circumstances, as well as the skills of the translator. The link to Education appears to be dependent on particular participants organizing the participation while others are responsible for ensuring it happens (U1). | The use of a preconceived line of impact can be impossible to predict from the beginning. The twists and turns that the process takes cannot be predicted. Direct and indirect impacts also need to be accounted for. Indirect impact can be more important in the long run than the direct impact (R1). | |||
| Maximum impact is not purely about what the direct results are of this project but through being an ambassador for the method the impact of the project is maximized. This reiterates the importance of people in creating impact (R1). | ||||
| Challenges | Even though it was practice based research, the translation and shift from academia to actual practice was difficult (V1, G1, U2, R2). | The calendar agendas and research agendas differ between the different actors of the project (G1, M1, U1). This is something that should be discussed at the beginning of the project and can make it difficult to include students in the projects (M1, R2). | How do we make it not so linear? | |
| The exiting of partners and introduction of new people into a project directly affects the flow and continuity of a project. It also influences the mapping process (U1, U2, R1, R2). | The exiting and introduction of new people into a project directly affects the flow and continuity of a project. It also has a result on the mapping process (G1, M1, V1). | |||
| Limitation | Participants found it difficult to identify themselves in the roles of the Contribution Mapping methodology (U1, R2). | Participants did not understand the language of the Contribution Mapping framework (M1, V1, G1). | The actual mapping of the interviews and the overlap made it difficult to separate the individual stories from each other and to connect to each other. | |
| Participants did not find themselves in the types of roles available in the framework. It was too structured for them. (M1, V1, G1, R2). | The whole process is extremely time intensive. | |||
| Modification | Should be real-time to meet the criteria for UAS research impact evaluation and executed by an internal research/project manager. | Addition or modification of the roles and terminology. | Addition of extra information over stakeholders, impact level, context or the like. |
| . | Stage 0: Set-up . | Stage 1: Interviews . | Stage 2: Interviews . | Stage 3: Mapping . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation | While for the purpose of this study it is important to have both an emic and etic perspective, the actual act of contribution mapping required inside knowledge from the beginning of the project. A project manager would be better suited to doing this than an external research team as they are already cognizant of the project details. | The use of too much structure during the interview process results in very stilted answers. Semi-structured interviews are better suited. | While institutions were specifically chosen to participate (R1), a project often appears to be reliant on a particular person in the consortium rather than the institution itself. Should that person leave, there is the potential for the commitment to the project. The role changes with a new person and appears to often lose momentum (M1, R1, V1, G1). | The outcome of the mapping is very flat and does not meet our expectations. Perhaps are expectations were too high but we had hoped to see a rich tapestry that told the viewer the story of the project. |
| Set up often consists of negotiations with potential stakeholders and getting partners on board, a process that is highly dependent on networks. Content is less prominent (U1, U2, R1, M1, G1). | Participants often have differing experiences, focuses, and ideas about their roles and that of others in the project (U2, M1, V1, G1, R2). | How funding is divided and who specifically gets this funding is very backwards. The stakeholders are expected to give in-kind. The partners who do not get funding appear to have less influence on the project (G1, R1, V1). The stakeholders are in an environment that pays attention to the numbers and hours, while you as a researcher just want to seize opportunities yourself. As a result, the people in the project sometimes had to go back to their managers and financial departments to see, for example, how the project could be (co)financed (R1). |
| |
| The project team wanted to create more research output than their project budget and time allowed. They intend to continue creating some of these things without a project extension (R1, U2, U1, M1, G1). | The continuation of the extension Phase beyond the output is reliant on the person involved and their commitment (U2). | The context of the processes does not show well. | ||
| Covid 19 clearly influenced the project. Rules and regulations made it difficult to meet and continue as planned (U2, R2, M1). | Many activities were done to ensure a scientific basis for the project. However, changes needed to be made in order to fit with the ‘practice’ and accomplish something for them (M1). However, it is necessary to have and build a common understanding with stakeholders who work on the project to make a positive, supported, impactful project (U1, R2, M1). | There are many different routes that are sometimes interlinked and dependent on some of the partners. | ||
| There are people who primarily work as internal networkers in their own organization to make the institutional participation and the importance of the project internally recognized (U1, V1). There are some people who are primarily busy with the stakeholders and external partners to bring the project further (connectors) (R2, M1). There are very few who work as both, but these people seem to serve as translators (G1, R2). This does not appear to be a conscious decision but is the result of the demands of the project, partners and circumstances, as well as the skills of the translator. The link to Education appears to be dependent on particular participants organizing the participation while others are responsible for ensuring it happens (U1). | The use of a preconceived line of impact can be impossible to predict from the beginning. The twists and turns that the process takes cannot be predicted. Direct and indirect impacts also need to be accounted for. Indirect impact can be more important in the long run than the direct impact (R1). | |||
| Maximum impact is not purely about what the direct results are of this project but through being an ambassador for the method the impact of the project is maximized. This reiterates the importance of people in creating impact (R1). | ||||
| Challenges | Even though it was practice based research, the translation and shift from academia to actual practice was difficult (V1, G1, U2, R2). | The calendar agendas and research agendas differ between the different actors of the project (G1, M1, U1). This is something that should be discussed at the beginning of the project and can make it difficult to include students in the projects (M1, R2). | How do we make it not so linear? | |
| The exiting of partners and introduction of new people into a project directly affects the flow and continuity of a project. It also influences the mapping process (U1, U2, R1, R2). | The exiting and introduction of new people into a project directly affects the flow and continuity of a project. It also has a result on the mapping process (G1, M1, V1). | |||
| Limitation | Participants found it difficult to identify themselves in the roles of the Contribution Mapping methodology (U1, R2). | Participants did not understand the language of the Contribution Mapping framework (M1, V1, G1). | The actual mapping of the interviews and the overlap made it difficult to separate the individual stories from each other and to connect to each other. | |
| Participants did not find themselves in the types of roles available in the framework. It was too structured for them. (M1, V1, G1, R2). | The whole process is extremely time intensive. | |||
| Modification | Should be real-time to meet the criteria for UAS research impact evaluation and executed by an internal research/project manager. | Addition or modification of the roles and terminology. | Addition of extra information over stakeholders, impact level, context or the like. |
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
