How to demonstrate impact through effective storytelling

Worksheet 1 — Sorting the Impact Pathway

Purpose: This activity gets people classifying real statements from two different roles, the science-policy intermediary role and the research role, into activity, output, outcome or impact. The differences between the two are the point. They show where an intermediary and a researcher genuinely see the same project differently.

Note: science-policy intermediary role are also referred to as Knowledge brokers and boundary spanners.

Useful for:

1. Intermediary roles at the science-policy interface, to see where each role’s contribution actually sits on the impact pathway and why this matters
2. Researchers, to locate where their own work enters the impact pathway and where effort pays off if impact, not just output, is the goal
3. Policy teams, to recognise their own role as a contributor to the pathway rather than just a recipient of what it produces

Instructions: Work alone, in pairs, or by role-playing the two perspectives. Sort each statement, then build a short pathway from what you’ve sorted. There’s no single correct sort. The different ways to sort each statement is the training outcome.

Tech needed: Printed or digital statement list; breakout tables or rooms.

Duration: 20 to 30 minutes. There are 44 statements plus pathway-building and reflection, so don’t rush it.

Preparation: See Slides. Facilitator note in breakout settings: expect disagreement between the two perspectives and let it run rather than resolving it too fast.

Worksheet 2 — Enabling Impact: Diagnosing & Valuing the Hidden Work

Purpose: Each scenario looks like a success story on the surface. The task is to spot which of six enabling principles, co-design, context, stakeholder networks, EDI, mutual capacity, embedding impact, is actually missing, and what that costs later.

Useful for:

1. Intermediary roles at the science-policy interface, to catch a weak principle before a project starts rather than after it has caused a problem
2. Researchers, to notice which parts of their own delivery never make it into the final report even though they are what made the outcome possible
3. Policy teams, to see their own role in supplying the conditions a project needs, not just assuming delivery on its own is enough

Instructions: Work through the four scenarios, alone or in breakout settings as a group, naming what is missing and what risk it creates. Finish with the synthesis questions across all four together.

Tech needed: Printed scenario cards or slides; breakout tables.

Duration: 20 to 25 minutes.

Preparation: See Slides.

Worksheet 3 — Contribution or Attribution: Language & Signals of Impact

Purpose: This one trains the ear. Ten statements, some from real REF case studies, some constructed, and the job is to hear which ones overclaim and which ones actually hold up.

Useful for:

1. Intermediary roles at the science-policy interface, to catch overclaim before it goes out under the Hub’s name
2. Researchers, to find language that survives scrutiny in writing and not just in a room
3. Policy teams, to recognise which kind of claim they can safely act on or cite themselves

Instructions: For each statement, alone or in a group, name what issue it is about and call it strong or weak, with reasons. There is no single right answer. What matters is how each version lands and what it lets you defend.

Tech needed: Printed statement list or slides.

Duration: 15 to 20 minutes.

Preparation: See Slides.

Worksheet 4 — Tracking the Key Points of Your Impact Story

Purpose: This is where a real project turns into a record. Need, activity, output, outcome, impact, all the way through, ending in two things: a fuller narrative for the tracking record and a tightened public story. Honest contribution beats confident attribution, every time.

Useful for:

1. Intermediary roles at the science-policy interface, to build the Hub’s central evidence record calldown by calldown, in a form that’s ready to reuse in slides and communications
2. Researchers, to separate what is evidenced from what is anticipated and see where their own project sits in the wider pathway
3. Policy teams, to name their own contribution honestly, alongside whatever else contributed, rather than have it summarised by someone else

Instructions: Work through sections 1 to 7 in order. This builds a record, so give it real time rather than treating it like a discussion exercise.

Tech needed: A computer. This one needs typing up, not just talking through.

Duration: 30 to 40 minutes for a full pass. Can be split into a first session for the fuller narrative and a second for tightening it into the punchy version.

Preparation: See Slides. Facilitator preparation: read our blog ‘From metrics to storytelling: making sense of hidden impact’.