Table 2 Evidence of impact model applied to Associate PI checklists
Level of impact | Checklist evidence | |
|---|---|---|
1: Self | Micro | Implied evidence of being motivated and committed but little evidence about how participants felt about being an Associate PI. High evidence of engagement e.g. organisational skills, networking across the wider team and working with the research team on a regular basis. |
2: Personal Practice | Micro | High evidence of enlightenment e.g. knowledge acquisition of research governance. Medium evidence of situated, transferred and reconstructed learning e.g. response to change as a result of increase knowledge e.g. deviation to protocol. High evidence of action-based learning e.g. taking leadership in managing the research process. |
3: Department or Team | Meso | High evidence of teamwork and working across different clinical teams and members of the research team. |
4: Organisation or Local Community | Meso | Medium evidence of impact in own organisation e.g. upskilling staff. No evidence of impact on other organisations or communities. |
5: Sector or society | Macro | Low evidence of disseminating findings to professional sector. No evidence of wider societal or sector impact. |