An Open Research Publication Workflow
Plan authorship, review, rights, identifiers and preservation before releasing a report.
GRS Editorial · GHERead guideGRS editorial · Evaluation
Evaluating the Impact of Research Programmes
Connect activities to plausible outcomes and assess contribution with honest limits.
Evaluation
A practical starting point.
Connect activities to plausible outcomes and assess contribution with honest limits. This guide offers a starting method for teams developing research and institutional decisions. Adapt it to the question, context and relevant scientific, ethics and data requirements.
Step 01
Write a theory of change
Show how funding, expertise and activities are expected to produce outputs, uptake and longer-term outcomes. Make assumptions explicit. A publication is an output; changed practice or a better decision is a different claim requiring additional evidence.
Step 02
Choose a credible design
Match methods to the question and available comparison. Administrative data, interviews, case studies and contribution analysis can each illuminate part of the story. If a counterfactual is unavailable, avoid claiming that the programme alone caused an observed change.
Step 03
Capture negative results
Record work that did not reach intended users, delays, unintended effects and alternative explanations. Ask participants and partners whether the research was usable. Reporting only success cases creates a misleading account of institutional learning.
Step 04
Use evaluation during delivery
Set review points before a project ends so insights can influence the programme. Explain data limitations and confidence in each conclusion. An evaluation should support a decision to continue, adapt or stop, with reasons visible to stakeholders.
Illustrative application
What this could look like.
A research programme may publish five reports and host ten events. To assess impact, look for decisions or practices those outputs informed, interview intended users and examine competing influences. A credible conclusion might be that the programme contributed to agenda setting while evidence of operational change remains incomplete. That distinction is useful for the next funding decision.
Put it into practice
A short working checklist.
- Write the precise decision or research question this work should support.
- Record the sources, methods, stakeholders and permissions needed before proceeding.
- Agree who reviews the output and how limitations will be communicated.
- Set a date to revisit the decision when evidence or conditions change.
GRS Group editorial guide · Published 24 September 2026 · Informational guidance, not an empirical study or formal professional advice.
Related research
Continue with the centre and knowledge model.
Global Institutional Excellence Research Center Research & Knowledge All guidesFurther reading