Independent corroboration | Attribution | Reach | Importance |
---|---|---|---|
Did the materials provided to verify the research impact convince the Panel that the key impact claims had been corroborated? | Was the link between the research and the claimed post-research impact clearly demonstrated? | How broad was the reach of the impacts on the relevant constituencies, when reach is defined as spread and breadth of influence post-study? | How important are the post-research impacts to products, processes, behaviors, policies, and/or practices, when importance is defined the significance and noteworthiness of an impact and its ability to endure? |
8–9 – Corroborated | 8–9 – Significant contribution | 8–9 – Extensive reach because it has widespread reach in relevant constituencies in multiple countries | 8–9 – Extremely important |
6–7 – Probably corroborated | 6–7 – Good contribution | 6–7 – Broad reach because it has widespread reach in relevant constituencies across multiple regions, or states, in Australia or internationally | 6–7 – Very important |
5 – Possibly or partially corroborated | 5 – Moderate contribution | 5 – Moderate reach because it is reaching relevant constituencies in multiple discrete locations | 5 – Moderately important |
3–4 – Not corroborated but further information could provide a more convincing corroboration | 3–4 – Small or some contribution | 3–4 – Some reach (modest) because the impact has only modest reach in local constituencies, or has continued in the areas where the study was conducted | 3-4 – Some import |
1–2 – Not corroborated and it is unlikely that further information could provide a more convincing corroboration | 1–2 – There is no discernible link between the underpinning research and the claimed post-study research | 1–2 – Limited or no assessable post-study reach | 1-2 – Limited or no assessable post-study importance |