Implementing and ascertaining impact and outcomes of research is a prolonged process that may take several years due to complexities in bureaucratic, social, and economic systems. At the macro level, collective reflection on the different methods and approaches that research projects use to promote uptake and impact is rare but has potential to encourage learning and exchanges between different funders and projects around impact pathways as useful road maps for research.

The Covid-19 pandemic has changed the nature of research – while it has increased the demand for evidence to inform decision-making, it has further disrupted both the policy-influencing and engagement activities that would usually accompany such research. This report is based on an analysis of 90 research projects supported by the Covid Collective, COVID CIRCLE, and Covid Response for Equity (CORE) initiatives. It provides an overview and insight into how different funders and initiatives were working to facilitate change in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. In line with the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) definitions of ‘impact’, and subsequent work by the ESRC-FCDO’s (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office) Impact Initiative, four categories were used to map the emerging outcomes and different types of change. These outcome areas comprise capacity, networks, conceptual, and instrumental outcomes. Outcome examples were then classified into more detailed descriptive groups highlighted in Table 1.

Key findings  Cognitive and relational outcomes dominate the development research initiatives that were mobilised in response to the pandemic. Around half the projects analysed highlighted examples of impact pathways within the networks and conceptual outcome categories. The research initiatives reviewed have helped shape understandings of the crisis in diverse contexts and forged new connections between researchers, knowledge brokers, and decision makers.

 Despite the emphasis placed by research donors on instrumental impact on policy and practice, these kinds of impacts are difficult to record in the short term, with only a minority of projects reporting them. The impacts will most likely be more pronounced in coming years. The analysis also suggests that impact on practice is equally important as it is on policy.

 One quarter of the projects analysed strengthened the capacities of either researchers or intermediaries and the capacity of beneficiary groups to participate or engage with research. The legacy of this strengthened capacity may improve the production and use of research in response to the longer-term impacts of the pandemic and future health shocks.

 There is variance between the research initiatives regarding the impact pathways of projects. For example, within the International Development Research Centre's (IDRC) CORE programme, most projects demonstrated at least one impact pathway in each outcome category and showed the most instrumental impacts of the three initiatives. One possible explanation for this is the degree to which the think-tanks and research organisations funded through CORE are embedded in their local and national policy contexts. Furthermore, examples include highlighting the benefits of international partnerships and research that are associated with high-profile international institutions.  Irrespective of the disciplines of the projects analysed, all the initiatives exhibited more outcome examples in the conceptual and networking categories than in the capacity building and instrumental outcome categories.

 The analysis presented here suggests that researchers and donors should value diverse pathways to impact. Facilitating change is complex and requires behaviour change at different levels, including community participation in projects, building of networks that connect research with practice, and changes in policy.

 The evaluated examples of research engagement demonstrate the need for flexible forms of funding and possibilities to reframe projects in real time during a pandemic. Funders should therefore consider explicitly supporting adaptive and flexible approaches to research production and engagement.

 The importance of systems-level, longer-term support was highlighted through several project examples that were able to deliver rapid research in a crisis due to their ability to quickly mobilise research funding. This enables building resilience against future economic, health, and environmental emergencies.