 The University of Washington Team's project is our third presentation. The team's project title is Understanding and Communicating Research Impact, The Needs of STEM and Health Sciences Faculty and Postdoctoral Researchers. Members of this team are Nagina Gossabeeq, Lindley Beard, Jackie Bellinger, Diana Loudon, Robin Chinn-Romer, and with additional support from Steve Heller and Maggie Faber. I'm going to share slides for Jackie, so let me do that and get organized for you. And then we will get going. Over to you, Jackie. Great. Thank you so much, Sue. And I'm really excited to be here presenting on behalf of the other UW, University of Washington team today on behalf of our group. And as you said, our project concentrated on science, technology, engineering, and math, or STEM, and health sciences researchers, and focused on exploring the needs of early career faculty and postdocs in these fields, related to understanding and communicating research impact. And we defined research impact as the extent to which publications or other scholarly output are read, discussed, used, and disseminated both inside and outside of academia. So next slide, please. I'm sorry. That's okay. It's a very dramatic pause there. So at the University of Washington for this project, we had three core questions we wanted to investigate. What are faculty and postdoctoral researcher needs for understanding and communicating the impact of their work? How do these researchers define impact? What language do they use? How do they understand it? And what are their priorities for research impact support? And what are the gaps campus wide in this support and where are there opportunities for the libraries and other partners to address these gaps? We did in 2019 a survey of STEM and health sciences faculty and graduate students and saw that support for understanding and communicating research impact was a key priority for this user community. But like with most quantitative data, it didn't tell us much about why or the texture and nuance of what that meant. So the UW ARL project was really designed to get to that deeper understanding of the needs and challenges researchers face and explore some of these questions. And I just want to say that while the University of Washington does have some support in this area for researchers that existed prior to this project, it is still a developing and not yet fully mature service at the kind of programmatic level. And our hope really was that this work would help us kind of continue to build out that service at that kind of programmatic broader level. So on STEM and health sciences fields in particular, as I imagine for many institutions, they are continuing to grow rapidly. They're large sources of large attractors of research funding, grant funding, and central to the research enterprise here at the university. And we wanted to focus on early career researchers in particular, because we were curious about what the future might look like in terms of understanding and communicating impact. And for us postdoctoral researchers are a large but very often overlooked group in terms of the future of research enterprises. So, thank you methodology and data analysis. We interviewed 19 early career faculty and postdoctoral researchers in late winter and early spring of 2020. We took a semi structured interview approach and also provided interviewees with an example research impact report. We selected one of their articles and created a report highlighting metrics and contextual information from sources such as Web of Science Google Scholar and alt metric. We provided these types of reports to faculty on a more ad hoc basis in the past, and we're curious to see if this really met the user needs. And we provided the report in advance of the interview and then discussed it with the interviewee to get their feedback. We had an inductive coding approach using in vivo software to code transcripts conduct analysis and generate reports, and we engaged in collaborative coding, which is why we had a slightly larger team, both of stamina health sciences liaisons as well as those with research impact expertise and knowledge and assessment expertise. So, first note about limitations. We had conducted three in person interviews before the University of Washington shut down in March of 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, at which point we shifted to fully online interviews. We initially also started with a question about the services we had been piloting before this time, say individual liaison consultations about helping faculty demonstrate impact for promotion and tenure. We decided to explore how that support had helped faculty what they did with it what difference that it made. We had trouble connecting with with this this group of folks who had received support in the past. So we ended up dropping that question from this project, but that is something that we're doing next year going forward. All right, so next slide please. So our results highlighted a number of key areas for attention. I think broadly speaking, our one key takeaway was that early career researchers often felt on their own we heard repeatedly they just had to figure it out for themselves. And that's when it comes to understanding and communicating the impact of this work. There was a recognition that this is incredibly high stakes in terms of promotion and impact finding a job getting research funding. There was a gap between that high stakes and the kind of need to figure it out for themselves. There are certainly currently gaps in support for researchers who are trying to understand and communicate how their work makes a difference, not only in terms of scholarship, but also on policy, clinical practice, and wider public understanding of health issues and that I think as a result of when this was happening during the start of COVID-19 pandemic was really coming to the fore in terms of how one understands and communicates impact of research. So, looking at more specific findings, interviewees found the research impact report useful, but also indicated the importance of going beyond simply providing counts to offering context and meaning for the metrics. And interviewees consistently expressed the need for support in translating metrics into compelling narratives. While they were often aware of how to find an impact metrics or citation metrics, there was less confidence in using them to be able to tell the story of their work. I also noted the need for support with increasing the visibility and impact of their research through both traditional and social media. And Twitter was mentioned in most of the interviews as a tool for discovery and keeping up to date building networks and increasing visibility and impact. There was a consistent theme of researchers, again, often being on their own in terms of establishing that online scholarly profile and the best ways of using social media for research visibility. And there's just a small quote here from one of our interviewees that points to that. I think, lastly, understanding and communicating the impact of interdisciplinary public and community engaged research was also top of mind for this group. The impact metrics don't always help those whose work crosses disciplinary boundaries, or who engaged in community or public scholarship, where impact might be more on policy or on the communities themselves. And again, interviewees pointed to the need to be able to communicate research to multiple audiences, including the general public and the communities they work with. I think we gained a lot of valuable insights into how our interviewees are thinking about impact and the language they used to talk about it. And this is really providing the foundation for work moving forward as we develop our services. So, next slide please. So, since the conclusion of the pilot, our library's colleagues have taken a number of actions to begin to address the needs identified in the project. We've made a variety of workshops, a series of workshops for faculty and graduate students, as well as presentations specifically for postdoctoral researchers. And these are important not only to help build greater awareness of the importance of thinking about research impact as early in a career as possible, but also help to create some meaningful connections with this group. The group of our librarians have also begun to offer regular scholarly and author profile workshops aimed at graduate students, postdocs and faculty. And these workshops highlight strategies for building online profiles to share and discover scholarship and network with other researchers. And the results from our project were used to inform both the content as well as the language that was used to kind of frame and market that these offerings as well so it might resonate with with user communities. So I think overall, through these offerings we've been able to take a much more intentional and focused approach to building research impact into our programming and events. Next slide. Thank you. What's next. Obviously going forward we're continuing to collaborate with our colleagues to explore how to take action on these findings. I think, most importantly for us now. We're assessing those new offerings to understand their impact the difference they make and determine if we're actually getting it right in terms of meeting the needs that we had heard about in this, this project. So thinking about as a next step, how we can explore translating these findings into measures that can help the library demonstrate value and impact as these research impact offerings grow. So how do those who attend these workshops use what they learned the difference they make and how do we understand and measure that in meaningful ways. So that is the conclusion of my presentation. I think the next slide is just thank you, and to our colleagues both at UW and to the University of Pittsburgh team, as you said we partnered with them to explore a broader research question. And that's it. Thank you very much.