Unleashing the Impact Potential of Early‐Career Researchers: Recognizing the Value of Micro‐Level Impact
三位早期职业研究者分享经验，提出微观层面影响力（对个人或群体的影响）更易实现，并给出从研究项目开始就规划微观实践的建议，以帮助早期职业研究者平衡学术成功与真实世界影响力。
For many management scholars, reflecting on the impact of our research prompts us to rethink our legacy as academics. Should we publish papers in top journals, contribute to societal betterment, or do both? With expanded definitions of impact that recognize a wide range of possibilities, including practical, societal, policy, and educational realms (Wickert et al., 2021), many academics have argued for prioritizing the real-life implications of their scholarship (e.g., Basken, 2016; Wineburg, 2013). However, the dominant perception among management scholars is that impact follows publications (Kassirer et al., 2023), and the main measurements of academic success still tend to be journal impact factors and academic citation counts. Having an impact can be a strong aspiration among early-career researchers (ECRs), which we define as doctoral students, post-doctoral researchers, assistant professors, and other junior faculty 5–10 years out from defending their PhD. The advice given to these ECRs frequently emphasizes publishing in top journals to establish a strong career foundation. However, being coached in this way may be demotivating for ECRs with the ambition to pursue impact. Impact-curious ECRs are frequently told that their motivations for becoming an academic are secondary and should be reserved for the latter stages of their career, making the pursuit of impact seem like it requires time, status, and skills beyond the reach of an ECR. Scholars often discuss impact as something that primarily exists at the macro level (broad societal or policy level) or, perhaps, at the meso level (organizational or community level). This high bar makes impact seem daunting and out of reach for ECRs. While we are not countering the long-held wisdom that journal reputation and publication citation counts are career currency, we challenge the belief that impact should be something ECRs can only engage with later in their careers. We question whether there is a better way to think about impact that balances both the realities of thriving in an academic career and recognizes the desires of ECRs to view their work as meaningful in the real world. We (Tina, Stephanie, and Marleen), as three ECRs, share our experiences and perspectives to highlight the breadth of impact that research can have if we consider impact differently at the micro level. We distinguish the conventional macro-level and meso-level impact from the micro level (individual or group level), which is more attainable for ECRs. Through describing the tensions we have experienced with the prevalent, narrow conceptualization of impact, we reorient the typical view of impact to better approach the dual sense of responsibility to our work and ourselves. Then, we propose micro-practices for ECRs – or any interested academic – that are planned from the start of a research project. We provide guidance to other ECRs and conclude with a call to action for our senior colleagues, academic institutions, and professional associations to pave a new path forward regarding impact. We introduce the idea of having an impact at different levels (see Table I). Impact at the macro level can have policy implications and inform practices at a societal level. The current discussion on impact focuses primarily on the macro level, but we see this type of impact mostly occurring as an outcome of certain types of research. The meso level refers to organizational or community impact that can inform organizational and community leaders about best practices and influence organizational policies and strategy. Impact at the meso level requires ECRs to leverage a strong network, which not all of us have, especially ECRs moving abroad for their PhD studies and subsequent career steps. Finally, micro-level impact refers to any influence researchers may have on individuals and groups, including research participants and organizational teams. This kind of impact can be anticipated and planned for from the conception of a research project and pursued during the project. Yet, because the micro level is not widely acknowledged, scholars are often unprepared or underprepared to have it, which is a missed opportunity, especially for ECRs. An example of experiencing the potential for micro-level impact can be shared through Marleen's PhD research. The phenomenon Marleen studied would be of interest to both academics and society more broadly: How do low-income entrepreneurs innovate and scale their innovations, and how is this supported? Although she hoped her research would yield practical insights once completed, she did not expect to have any noticeable impact on the research participants during the interview process. Several of her research participants viewed her presence as validating and even asked for her advice. She was not prepared to give immediate feedback because she had not considered her potential to have a micro-level impact, nor did she consider how and when she could offer her assistance to the research participants. The participants' reaction to her as a potential advisor came as a surprise, and because of this, Marleen felt overwhelmed, uncomfortable, and disappointed to leave opportunities to support the interviewed participants unexplored. Recognizing the potential for micro-level impact, Marleen could have better prepared for the interviews and developed a follow-up plan to connect the participants to known resources and contacts to explore at their discretion. Similarly, as Tina started her PhD research on the human resources implications of Chinese multinational companies investing in Europe, she slowly realized that the interviews for her case studies were viewed by the participants as meaningful interactions and opportunities for gaining information. While conducting the interviews, she noticed that her questions were helping her participants to reflect on their daily work and often in different ways than they were used to doing. During the interviews, the managers asked for her insights on how similar organizations approached working with Chinese owners. Tina felt uncomfortable sharing any general insights, as she has been taught in her methodology courses that an observant interviewer should refrain from expressing personal ideas or opinions in order to avoid influencing participants. She also felt awkward having an unnatural interaction that limited her ability to contribute more to her participants' questions after the interview. While the findings would be much further out in her research timeline, Tina wished she had anticipated having this micro-level impact on the individuals participating in her research and had prepared for the meaningful questions her research evoked. Giving something back in that moment would have contributed to the momentum of the projects, instead of waiting until the data is analysed and published, as this could have fostered even deeper relationships with her participants and organizational contacts. Thus, because broader impact in management research has mainly been framed as tackling policy, practice, or societal challenges, we as ECRs miss opportunities to pursue impact in the organic ways that can present themselves during our research efforts. A good starting point for experiencing a broader impact of our work as ECRs often comes at the micro level, enacted through implementing a series of micro-practices. In the following section, we provide guidance for what this can mean in practice. Micro-practices for impact are straightforward practices that can be planned for and implemented in research projects. As the name suggests, micro-practices focus particularly on influencing the micro level and on both anticipating and planning for situations that can emerge during the research process, as opposed to the end of the process. Embedding everyday practices into our research efforts can make having an impact both more attainable and manageable, and recognizing the potential of impact at this level creates an important sense of meaning in our work, especially as ECRs. As noted, an initial step involves shifting our perspective to integrate impact considerations earlier and more intentionally throughout the research process. While human subjects protocol drafting has us consider the potential benefits to participants, those wanting to embrace the potential of micro-level impact need to think deeper and proactively about various types and levels of impact. Before starting a project, researchers have the option to make significant decisions about the impact they want to pursue, which can lead to different methodological and theoretical considerations. During her doctoral research, Stephanie did not anticipate the power of her theoretical framework. With one of the theories being more common in counselling realms, her interview protocol yielded deep, thoughtful insights from her participants who had recently transitioned into full-time entrepreneurial careers. Trying to maintain researcher neutrality, she kept the interviews going as some participants disclosed sentiments that they did not share even with their close friends and family members. Stephanie felt she held a responsibility to do more for the participants beyond sending them a summary of the findings. In retrospect, she wishes that she could have been better prepared with some end-of-interview insights and follow-on resources should her participants want to seek more communal support. An appropriate micro-practice to address this is to plot out all anticipated interactions outside the research team. Key information to consider would be to identify all the people involved – including research participants (interviewees, focus group members, survey recipients, and volunteers for experiments), community and organizational contacts, and other practitioners – and consider their potential interests, questions, and requests. How might the research be received during these interactions? During the points of contact, continue to revisit, revise, and update what information might be helpful to the different stakeholders. While even those who plan may be under-prepared in the moment, planning intervals of time to approach micro-practices within the research timeline can help to provide moments to make micro-practice adjustments along the way. To this end, because the opportunity for micro-level impact can also be serendipitous, it is important to be alert and prepared. Assuming micro-impact during interactions in advance allows for deeper consideration of how others might receive and perceive the research. Such planning would have helped us three to anticipate micro-impact, rather than be surprised by it. During the data collection process, there are several moments to create impact. Because collecting data is not a unilateral transaction between participants and researchers, we can design the data collection process in ways that participants not only offer their time and experience but can also learn or gain support through their participation. Tina shares that she now aims for her studies to provide meaningful, practical feedback for the participants immediately upon completion, in addition to relevant academic insights. In one of her current projects, participants received a formative report based on the scales used in the pre- and post-survey, with an explanation of what these scales mean and how participants performed in comparison to the group to date. In an experiment on bystander training Tina co-designed, participants received feedback on their choices to interact with an offender and which reactions might have been more effective. Likewise, colleagues conducting archival research can note inconsistencies in the data, compare it with official organizational reports, and help to improve indexing and coding efforts for others. To address the fragmented support landscape for ECRs, through this essay, we aim to provide cursory recommendations for ECRs, senior academics, and institutions on how to facilitate creating micro impact for ECRs. As all three of us recognize that adopting such practices in our earlier research careers could have enhanced our impact and our overall satisfaction with our work, we aim to inspire and raise awareness among fellow ECRs and other interested scholars. We especially encourage ECRs to be curious about micro impact and consider planning for impact at various levels from the outset of their research, with particular emphasis on embracing the potential for micro-level impact. ECRs can start by attending a workshop on (micro) impact and inform themselves through other means to learn about micro impact possibilities and planning for impact. It is also helpful to connect with like-minded ECRs and other scholars to exchange perspectives and advice. By learning through and from sharing experiences and best practices conducive to impact, ECRs can develop a routine to plan for impact at different levels early on in both a research project and their careers. Encouraged by this essay, we hope that ECRs can recognize their agency and find a way that suits their individual preferences and paths to engage in impact activities early in their career. Although recognizing micro-level impact is a great starting point, many institutional and systemic obstacles prevent interested ECRs from finding clear pathways to pursue impact. Although planning and enacting micro-practices could be considered intuitive and second nature by some senior scholars, ECRs often only realize the potential for impact in their first few projects, after such opportunities have passed. This can lead to frustration, as the desire to create meaningful impact through one's work often stems from personal motivations, making the wait for such impact to materialize especially difficult. While we acknowledge that impact at the micro level may be modest, having an impact on one individual is, nevertheless, relevant and can be meaningful for both the researcher and the research participant. Additionally, these small efforts can create ripple effects that can multiply in scale and significance over time, preparing ECRs to eventually have an impact on organizations, institutions, policies, or societal structures. We will next provide implications for senior scholars as mentors and in leadership roles, universities, accreditation bodies, associations, journals, and funding bodies to support ECRs pursuing impact and acknowledging micro-level impact. We encourage senior scholars to support ECRs interested in pursuing more impact through mentoring and efforts at the institutional level. As mentors, senior scholars can share their experience with impact work and lessons learned. Encountering several PhD students whose lived experiences inspired their research pursuits, Stephanie sensed that, for some of these ECRs, not having a broader impact in their research might mean opting out of academia. She understands why PhD supervisors steer their students towards publications for the best employment prospects possible. However, micro-practices for impact do not distract from research pursuit, complementing the actions a researcher is taking while still providing a manageable and meaningful pathway to channel their excitement to enact change. This is important to help students of diverse backgrounds and motivations thrive, finding ways they can better connect with the value of their research efforts earlier. Senior scholars can also provide hands-on support to ECRs by providing contacts to their networks and public outlets and by facilitating interactions with practitioner organizations. Senior academic colleagues are in a key position to also institutionally support the broader impact ambitions of ECRs, considering the different roles they have. As journal editors, sitting in the management of associations and community leaders, senior scholars can help develop more clarity over what impact is and can be in our field. This dialogue on definitions could make impact more approachable and accessible for the next generation of scholars. As hiring and tenure committee members, senior scholars can recognize and acknowledge different levels of impact efforts in their decision-making. As members of university management, senior scholars can also be key in supporting the creation of new institutional policies facilitating and enhancing impact efforts at different levels, and the enforcement of those broader impact parameters in promotion and tenure decisions. Thankfully, more and more institutions are recognizing other types of professional impact, even for ECRs. Last year, Stephanie was proud to be among the majority group of faculty senators who cast a positive vote for her institution to broaden its definition of impact to be inclusive of creative outputs, community engagement efforts, innovations (e.g., patents, licensing, open source), startup and social venture work, and other contributions to policy and practice. That type of institutional acknowledgment of the breadth of scholarly activities is a great accomplishment in institutionalizing impact at different levels within academic institutions. Universities can support interested scholars by providing more infrastructure to enhance impact-related activities and create better bandwidth. This could include providing training during the doctoral program about impact and organizing sessions for faculty members to exchange experiences of impact efforts. Surveying what (early career) researchers throughout different academic areas require for resources to create impact at different levels is a possibility for universities and other organizations (e.g., associations, funding bodies) to consider what kind of resources they could provide. A concrete example is to hire someone responsible for reaching actors outside the academic institution and distributing research findings to wider audiences. During her PhD, Marleen worked with a research project that had employed an interaction specialist to support with outreach activities. While such resources may exist within an institution, getting ECRs acquainted with these resources can greatly support their impact pursuits. Further, accreditation and national guidelines are starting to encourage business schools to broaden their perspectives on impact. Along with the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) inclusion of Standard Nine on Engagement and Social Impact, the Dutch Recognition & Reward program, and the British Research Excellence Framework are all recognizing the broader potential of academics to have an impact through their work. Senior scholars in different countries can learn from these and other national examples to lobby for broadening the impact potential of academics in their institutions and national programs. Development of such frameworks can more broadly disseminate a broader and comprehensive understanding of impact, encouraging scholars to plan from the start of research projects. To lead the way in integrating impact and considering impact at different levels, academic associations, journals, and conferences are in a position to advocate for more consideration and recognition of impact-focused engagements. They could grant awards to ECRs acknowledging and celebrating such impact activities, including micro impact. Furthermore, journals can also ask authors to include sections discussing different levels of impact and practical implications in more detail. Another related and helpful element could be to ask authors to also discuss micro-impact design efforts in the methods section of their manuscripts. This way, best practices of impact can be celebrated, disseminated, and made accessible. We also believe that associations and other networks can provide training on how to plan for impact without compromising on rigour and provide spaces to discuss impact-related questions. Many associations and special interest groups actively support academics, including ECRs, in recognizing the potential impact within their work: the Impact Research in for and others. Likewise, funding bodies could provide more resources to impact-related activities, including being open to from ECRs. To we a of how impact activities are particularly for ECRs. We advocate for planning for impact from the including efforts different We encourage ECRs to pursue micro-impact efforts and we our senior colleagues to the lead in a more inclusive impact engagement landscape by sharing their with ECRs and creating better systemic support for the next generation of scholars. We acknowledge that some of the implications for senior scholars are more and to than others. we believe that the micro-practices we have for micro-level impact are accessible to researchers, of their career or institutional We would like to our towards the of the to Advance for the workshop and a and for our We would also like to the for their and encouraging which helped to improve and the of the