1The impact pathway constitutes the analytical framework of the study. It serves as a common thread for its realization, and acts as a guide for the presentation of its results in the form of a report, structured according to the logic of the impact pathway. It incorporates the contextual elements that influenced its development, and comprises five phases:

• the actors' contribution, identifying the research selected within the case study scope, the actors involved, and their respective contributions;
• the products of research resulting from the previous phase, which contributed to the generation of the impact observed;
• the circulation of knowledge and intermediaries, which describes the progress of these products, their transformation and their appropriation by the recipients; it identifies the actors (or mechanisms) that served as facilitators/intermediaries between the academic world and the impact recipients;
• the initial impacts, that is to say the direct or indirect impact observed on the first recipients of the products of research that had been transformed or adapted in the previous phase;
• widespread impacts that affect another sphere of recipients as a result of a change in the spatial scale of the impacts or their extension to other areas.

2In the construction of the impact pathway, particular attention must be paid:

• to highlighting the causal links between the phases, in order to trace and shed light on the contribution of a given actor to the impacts observed;
• to the role of the actors involved in this impact pathway and the relationships they have with each other. One actor can both contribute to the research process and participate in the circulation of knowledge. The same actor may also benefit from the effects of the research ;
• to the iterative nature of the approach, within the same phase and between phases. The impact pathway is not linear. One research product may, for example, contribute to the production of another. It may also participate in the generation of impacts in multiple areas (social, economic, etc.) and in different time frames. Conversely, an impact may be the result of several research products.

Figure 1 : Impact pathway diagram.

3This chapter first presents the methods used to delimit a case, and then details the content of the five phases of the impact pathway. The definitions proposed (in quotation marks in the text) originated in the Asirpa or Impress methods. Examples have been taken from the completed Miriades cases to illustrate these different phases; some include a mention of the studies concerned, referenced by their abbreviated titles (see Table 1).

Case delimitation

4The scientific rapporteur plays a key role in this first step. By defining the scope of the research, they identify at the same time the primary elements of the impact pathway: the main research partners, results, methods used and actors involved in the circulation of knowledge, chronological reference points, geographical space, contextual events or other elements.

5All the research constituting the scope of the case is identified by means of a process that starts from an observed impact and continues backwards, in the direction of the work of the organization leading the study that is likely to have contributed to it. This choice of scope must be relevant with regard to its skills, the positioning and expertise of its teams in the scientific fields concerned (originality, interest, approach, etc.), and the importance of its contribution and its partnerships. In other words, the aim is to determine the angle or scale of analysis that will best account for the organization’s contribution to the observed impact. The scientific rapporteur thus constructs a plausible hypothetical impact pathway, to be compared with the points of view of the other actors in this pathway. Some example cases are shown in Text Box 2.

6The initial scope is not permanently fixed and may change over the course of the study. The bibliographic work and the interviews conducted with the actors and recipients of the impacts can change the boundaries of the scope. Likewise, the study will lead to a validation, or not, of the initial hypotheses regarding impact on recipients, and may also lead to the identification of other impacts and potentially other recipients.

7Points of concern: Delimiting the scope of the case involves an element of subjectivity. It is an exercise that may create bias, and the scientific rapporteur must be vigilant in this regard. A scope that is too restricted risks only partially elucidating the organization's contribution to the impact observed. Conversely, too broad a scope can render the study too complex and make the assessment of impact mechanisms a drawn-out, difficult process. It is thus advisable to refrain from selecting work that is too recent, the impact of which has not yet had time to fully unfold. The impact pathway is a snapshot of the impact at a given time.

The background and five phases of the impact pathway

Background

8The objective is to highlight the societal issues and events that had a significant influence on the initiation of the research process or the development of the different stages of the impact pathway. This analysis is provided in the introduction to a case study report, and describes how such events were able to promote, slow down or orient the decisions of the actors. These contextual elements may be of a highly diverse nature: political, scientific, environmental, economic, social, health, etc.

9The studies addressed in the Miriades project include, in particular: access to a new treatment [ARV], economic, social and environmental issues associated with the exploitation of a resource [Mines, Humboldt, Palms] or with a category of economic actors [Informal economy], the development of legislative or regulatory frameworks or international agreements [Mines, Humboldt], natural risks and hazards [Volcanoes] or the establishment of a new international institution [ARV].

Actors' contribution to the research process

10The objective of this first stage of the impact pathway is to document the specific contribution of the primary partners to the impacts observed, and thus to document the research activities that contributed to them.

11The term contribution refers to “the investments of all kinds made by all the actors involved in collective research processes.” The approach takes into account “all the skills, infrastructures, partnerships, reputations and institutional arrangements leveraged for the production of scientific and technical knowledge.” Its analysis encompasses “the position of research in relation to the global pool of knowledge, the forms of organization and the interactions between the different actors involved: 'the productive situation'” (Colinet et al., 2014).

12This approach thus aims to take into account the diversity of the elements necessary for carrying out research work and producing knowledge. The contributions considered are those made before or during the research work included within the scope of the case study.

13Beyond research and higher education institutions, the partners involved in the research process may be of a varied nature. The following groups also stakeholders to varying degrees in the studies in the Miriades project:

• representatives of civil society (non-profits, NGOs, community organizations, etc.), who serve as a relay between scientists and the communities concerned, or are directly involved in the projects [ARV, Volcanoes];
• actors in the economic sector (companies and professional organizations) who provide infrastructure, facilitate access to data or finance research [Humboldt, Mines];
• national, regional or international organizations and agencies that finance project-based research work and sometimes contribute to its definition [ARV, informal economy Humboldt, Palms];
• public authorities, which may sponsor or finance research, or may even be directly involved in carrying it out [ARV, Informal economy, Humboldt, Mines, Palms, Volcanoes];
• non-academic public institutions (national statistics institutes, health structures, etc.) involved in research activities or providing data [ARV, Informal economy, Humboldt];
• multi-actor networks that contribute to the organization, guidance or development of research [Palms].

14A description of the role of the actors who contributed to the research process in the case studies of the Miriades project is included in appendices.

15Points of concern: The aim is to identify the actors in the research process, i.e. those without whom the research work could not have been performed, and not to create an exhaustive mapping of all contributors to this process. Care must also be taken to clearly define the case scope within the continuum of research being conducted on the theme concerned, and to set time restrictions for the work. Previously produced knowledge is part of the “knowledge pool” that can be leveraged.

Products of research

16The objective of this second stage of the impact pathway is to present the products of research resulting from the previous phase, which contributed to the generation of the impact observed.

17These products are diversified. They may be: “academic (publications, confe-rences, etc.), technical (incorporated in software, marketable products, etc. or intangible like processes, know-how, training, expertise, etc.), or organizational (database, collections).” They “may or may not be subject to intellectual protections, such as filings to protect patents, know-how, trademarks or software” (Colinet et al., 2014).

18The examples of products listed in Table 2 (excluding academic publications, conferences and scientific seminars) illustrate this diversity.

19Points of concern: Causality is the decisive criterion in choosing the results to be mentioned in this section. The aim is not to appraise all the production resulting from the research, but more precisely that which actually contributed to the occurrence of the impact. For scientific publications, for example, it is advisable to cite only those that underpin the results.

Circulation of knowledge and intermediaries

20The objective of this third stage is to describe how the products of research circulate and are adapted or transformed and used.

21Intermediaries may include, for example, “technical systems, professional organizations, consulting, training or mediation organizations, licensing or contracting systems, human resources, technical centers, incubators, administrations or media.” (Colinet et al., 2014).

22The actors involved in this stage may also have contributed to the research process upstream, or may be recipients of the impacts. The way in which they leverage the knowledge produced may vary based on their area of expertise and the context.

23Thus, in the studies conducted within the Miriades project, contributions can be observed from:

• research and higher education establishments, whose involvement took various forms (development of advocacy campaigns, bringing different actors together, training, carrying out expertise, information and dissemination of scientific knowledge to society, contribution to the public debate, establishment of incubators, operating licenses, etc.); the commitment of researchers acting as facilitators was seen in all cases;
• public authorities, who served both as requestors of expertise and scientific knowledge and stakeholders in their adaptation, use or dissemination through various instruments (integration into public policy guidelines; enactment of laws and regulations; changes in the organization of public resources; funding of mechanisms to promote the dissemination of knowledge, etc. [ARV, Humboldt, Mines, Palms, Volcanoes];
• non-academic public institutions, which contribute to creating the conditions for the appropriation of the knowledge and innovations produced, to making them operational and sustaining them [ARV, Informal economy, Volcanoes];
• actors in the economic sector that enlist scientific expertise and appropriate or adapt new technologies, standards or practices [Humboldt, Mines, Palms];
• representatives of civil society (NGOs, non-profits, community organizations, etc.) who contribute to capacity development in communities or institutions (funding, training, awareness-raising actions, etc.), giving an issue grounding in public debate, ensuring the interface between science, politics or other actors in society, etc.; this category of actors was present in all the studies conducted;
• non-academic public institutions, which contribute to creating the conditions for the appropriation of the knowledge and innovations produced, to making them operational and sustaining them [ARV, Informal economy, Volcanoes];
• national, regional or international organizations and agencies, through the funding of mediation mechanisms, contributions to the operational implementation of research results, adaptation of their instruments, etc. [Informal economy, Palms, Volcanoes];
• multi-stakeholder networks [Informal economy, Humboldt, Mines]. This diversity of actors can form networks that contribute in various ways to the dissemination of knowledge or the raising of new issues.

24A description of the role of the intermediary actors identified in the case studies of the Miriades project is included in appendices.

25Points of concern: The boundary between the production of research and the circulation of knowledge is often a tenuous and porous one. Depending on the case, an element may be considered either as a product of the research stage or of the knowledge circulation stage. The logic behind the unfolding of the impact generation and the interactions between the actors are what determine its positioning in the impact pathway.

Impacts: initial impacts and widespread impacts

26These last two stages of the pathway describe the confirmed societal impacts, the nature and intensity of the changes observed, the limits encountered, and the recipients of these impacts. The recipient describes the impact as positive or negative. Depending on the categories of recipients questioned, the effects of a change may be deemed positive or negative.

27The analysis distinguishes two levels of impact: initial impacts and widespread impacts. Initial impacts involve effects on the direct users of research pro­ducts. Widespread impacts are “associated with the widespread adoption of the innovation over a large part of the target space or by a large part of the target population, beyond the sphere of the initial users (impact 1)” (Colinet et al., 2014). The distinction between initial impacts and extended impacts is based on a change in scale. Extended impact may also result from changes in nature. The case study on access to ARVs in Africa illustrates these two levels.

28The impacts contributed to by research performed by IRD in collaboration with its partners are described based on the six dimensions defined in the previous chapter (Adaptation of assessment tools for IRD): academic; economic; environmental; institutional; public policy; sociocultural, health and educational.

29Note that capacity development is integrated into each of these dimensions. These dimensions of impact can be observed at different geographical scales (local, national, international, etc.) and concern both initial impacts and extended impacts.

30Some elements characterizing the six dimensions of impact are proposed below, accompanied by examples drawn from completed case studies of the Miriades project. The studies concerned are referred to by their abbreviated title (see Table 1).

Academic impact

31In the context of the Miriades method, academic impact refers to the sphere of higher education and research (Table 3). This impact may materialize as capacity
development in academic institutions, or in the form of effects on the organization, functioning or structuring of the research and higher education system. It may also result in openness to new scientific issues and research questions, or even in the emergence of new fields to be addressed by the scientific community. It was agreed that the impact of knowledge production on the world of research as such, as well as on habitual iterations of research, would be excluded from the scope of this dimension of impact.

Economic impact

32Economic impacts can be observed through their effects on economic actors (households, companies, State, institutions, etc.). These changes may affect different sectors, such as employment (creation, preservation, reduction, qua-
lification, new trades, etc.), the production of goods and services (productivity, profitability, quality, diversification, cost reduction, etc.), resources/ income (increase, decrease, preservation), innovation or trade (Table 4).

Environmental impact

33Here we review the definitions proposed in the Asirpa method. The following are considered environmental impacts on the emergence and sustainability of socio-technical systems of production or consumption and on environmental compartments bearing upon national or international public policy issues: biodiversity, change climate change, pollution and destruction of environments, consumption of resources (Table 5).

Institutional impact

34This dimension of impact encompasses effects on public or private institutions other than higher education and research establishments, as well as on formal or informal social organizations. These impacts may concern the structure, the organization, skills, policy/strategy, or the functioning of these institutions or social organizations (Table 6).

Public policy impact

35This can be analyzed by looking at how knowledge and ideas are leveraged and appropriated by different actors in public debate and how they are used in public policies (Table 7). These effects can concern all or part of the life cycle of a public policy (agenda setting, policy formulation/decision-making, policy implementation, evaluation) and manifest themselves at different scales (local, national, international).

Sociocultural, health and educational impact

36This very broad dimension of impact may for example encompass effects on quality of life, well-being, behaviors and practices, the social fabric, representations, or public discourse (Table 8).

37Appendices show, by dimensions of impact, a description of the impacts identified via Miriades project case studies.

38Points of concern: The same impact may potentially be included under two different dimensions. For example, the creation of new jobs is likely to have economic effects as well as sociocultural, health or educational effects. Once documented, these effects can be identified simultaneously in the relevant dimensions. The objective is to highlight the different facets of the societal benefits of research.