{"id":4018,"date":"2014-07-24T12:34:21","date_gmt":"2014-07-24T12:34:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/per\/?p=4018"},"modified":"2014-07-24T12:34:21","modified_gmt":"2014-07-24T12:34:21","slug":"a-strategic-approach-for-evaluating-public-engagement-with-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/weblab.open.ac.uk\/blogs\/per\/archives\/4018","title":{"rendered":"A strategic approach for evaluating public engagement with research"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"Photograph<\/a>
Gareth Davies, The Open University<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Before I joined the OU, my background was in risk-based decision-making. I looked forward to finding innovative ways of gathering evidence of the impact of public engagement with research (PER). However, it seemed like whenever PER was mentioned evaluation would either become the pink elephant in the room or be quickly forgotten, and the conversation would focus on public engagement as opposed to public engagement with research. <\/p>\n

In my experience, this doesn\u2019t arise from ill intent but rather from a lack of understanding about the affordances of different PER activities and the methods and techniques used to evaluate the impact of PER. <\/p>\n

This seminar was an opportunity to test a theoretical framework that I believe has the capacity to address this issue.
\n<\/p>\n

<\/param><\/param><\/param><\/embed><\/object><\/p>\n

As the evaluation researcher on Engaging Opportunities and the Catalyst for Public Engagement with Research, my focus is on developing appropriate plans for evaluating the impact of PER. This is made easier by tools such as the 6 Ps, which Richard Holliman described in this post<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n
\"The<\/a>
The 6 Ps<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The 6 Ps help researchers to consider:<\/p>\n