NRF Workshop Unpacks How Research Can Deliver Real, Measurable Impact on Society

The National Research Foundation (NRF) hosted the Societal Impact of Research Workshop on 26 January 2026, attended by Deputy Vice-Chancellors responsible for research, representatives from Universities South Africa (USAf), and research support staff from public universities across South Africa. The workshop’s aim was to unpack the concept of research impact, interrogate planning for impact, and share the NRF’s requirements for impact assessment. In addition, the workshop aimed to grow understanding of societal impact and demonstrate its value. The workshop included presentations and time for engagement and discussion.

Professor Chris Brink, Emeritus Vice-Chancellor of Newcastle University in England and former Rector of Stellenbosch University, engaged participants on the concept and practice of the societal impact of research. He explained what constitutes societally impactful research and the significance of such research. Professor Brink highlighted the importance of research impact case studies in showing impact already achieved. He emphasised how every case study should address a few basic questions, including what the contribution of the research was to society, and the evidence that demonstrates that contribution.

He explained that genuine impact can, for example, be demonstrated when research directly informs a change in policy. In such a case, it would be possible to say a certain policy was changed because of the research conducted by a specific researcher or team at a university. The effect of the policy change on society would be evidence of impact achieved.

He reflected on a USAf research impact evaluation initiative which he led. As part of this initiative, USAf issued an Open Call for universities to submit societal impact case studies. These were evaluated, and selected examples have been posted on the USAf website, giving universities exposure. Drawing on the evaluation panel’s experience, Prof Brink noted that many submissions failed to answer the core question: What demonstrable effect has your university’s research already had on society? “Very often, half the submission is about the research outputs, where people tell you we’ve published 200 papers about this. Then, we have to say that’s not the question,” he said.

A second recurring challenge highlighted by Prof Brink was that academics often write as though their audience consists only of their peers. “… Academics tend to write as though they are writing for other academics, as though this is going to be read only by other professors,” Professor Brink explained. He pointed out, “your audience might be politicians, journalists, civic leaders, business leaders, NGOs and charities. Write something that can be read by the taxi driver, the hairdresser, the shop assistant — by those who may be starting to lose trust in universities. Write in a way they can understand. What they can understand is the effect of your research. You have to tell them how you have made people’s lives better in concrete ways. You have to talk about the effect of your activity.”

By way of example, Professor Brink described how a university mathematics department could run Saturday outreach programmes for school learners. He explained that while such initiatives are commendable, societal impact requires evidence of difference. For this, data are required. For instance, “… are more of these kids now [passing] matric mathematics? Can you tell me whether there are more kids now selecting mathematics rather than maths literacy? Can you tell me whether more kids from those schools now apply to get into university. The impact isn’t about your activity; it’s about the effect of your activity.”

NRF managers engaged the workshop delegates on various aspects of research impact, showcasing the organisation’s evolving research impact agenda. Dr Genevieve Simpson, Acting Head: Policy, Research and Advice, led a session on the NRF’s research impact journey. Beginning with the conceptualisation of the NRF’s approach to research impact, the journey culminated in the adoption of the NRF Framework to Advance the Societal and Knowledge Impact of Research and an Impact Implementation Plan. Gerhard Moolman, Acting Senior Manager: Digital Services and Head: Data Science, took the workshop through the use of impact statements and the 7 Cs. These are used to show potential for societal impact and assist with planning for impact. Dr Zolani Dyosi, Executive Manager: Thematic Research Support and Advancement, focused on impact assessment in NRF research grant applications. The session outlined how impact assessment can be embedded in applications for funding. Dr Patrick Nonjola, Acting Senior Specialist: Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation and Manager: Industry Innovation and R&D, provided background on the NRF Societal Impact Award, a key category in the prestigious NRF Awards held annually. The session outlined the lessons learnt from the NRF Societal Impact Award pilot and the NRF’s expectations when submitting nominations for the category.

Highlighting excellence in impactful research, Professor Bavesh Kana, Head of Pathology at the University of the Witwatersrand and former Director of the DSTI/NRF Centre of Excellence (CoE) for Biomedical TB Research (CBTBR), discussed the CoE’s societal impact. The CBTBR was the inaugural winner of the NRF’s Societal Impact Award in 2024. It revolutionised the country’s response to tuberculosis through its diagnostic testing technology. Professor Kana discussed the research and process that led to this significant impact, which has saved millions of lives both in South Africa and globally. The same technology was then adapted to respond to the Covid-19 outbreak. Since then, the diagnostic testing spots have been developed to respond to other diseases. Professor Kana’s session took workshop participants through the CBTBR’s journey to becoming a nationally and globally recognised example of the societal impact of research, highlighting the challenges, successes, and the areas where more should be done to ensure more research with societal impact.