The Impact Board FGB (IB-FGB) is the faculty representative of the Impact Board (IBVU). Just like in the IBVU, representatives from all departments of the faculty FGB sit on the IB-FGB. You are a member on behalf of Clinical Child and Family Studies, how did this come about, what is your role?
Since the beginning of 2020, I have been working not only at the VU, but also for the Academic Workshop Viveon: a collaboration of care institution 's Heeren Loo for people with intellectual disabilities and our section Clinical Child and Family Studies. My role within this, and that which I take with me to the IB-FGB, is as knowledge development consultant. Together with colleagues, I start new practice-oriented research projects in "incubators" where, from the start, partners from the care sector are involved in brainstorming about knowledge questions.
Before I took on this role, I developed a new diagnostic instrument for social cognition and aggressive behaviour in my research; this had an impact on youth care, as I brought the instrument (an app) to the market with a test publisher. With this experience and knowledge, I try to help more projects to make the step to impact.
What do you understand by valorisation and how do you think VU researchers should showcase their work?
Valorisation is the process of creating value from your research for the right audience. This differs per research field and per project: the audience can be a group within society, a sector or a specific branch within the business world, within the government, or another research group, etc. Impact is the goal we want to achieve with the new knowledge we have gained from research. For example, the concrete product that is actually used, or a new network of people working together, or a patent or start-up.
In the process of valorisation, VU researchers can therefore always create a piece of value for the right people for whom the research is important. Any form is a good step: from first sharing knowledge online to the concrete use of the knowledge on a daily basis. If everyone thinks just outside the box, and shares or applies knowledge just a step further, the science and knowledge will reach more people.
Is it important for VU researchers to highlight their work and why?
I think it is especially important that we work together on this and divide tasks within research groups. So yes, it is important to create attention for each research project with the right audience, and this can also be arranged more centrally from each department. Not every researcher needs to do this individually, as we sometimes notice that this idea puts colleagues off somewhat. We are focusing more and more on Team-science and that also means that this part of valorisation can be done more by colleagues who have the motivation and talent for it. This way, we can work together on impact for each research project.
How do you do this with your own research?
For our section and department, the first step has been taken by formalising collaborations with healthcare practice: Academic Workplaces. My role within this is to develop and share knowledge, and to ensure that it reaches the right people on the right work floor. So within my own projects, I have presented on my diagnostic instrument, provided training to healthcare professionals, written articles in the appropriate journals, and together with IXA (corporate lawyers at VU Amsterdam) approached the test publisher Hogrefe Amsterdam to publish the instrument.
Does all scientific work have to have a social relevance?
Science can of course be practised in many ways, from purely theoretical to participatory action research. In the latter case, the social relevance is very clear and directly visible, but this need not always be the case. It is not the only value we strive for. I do believe that any research can be valorised in small steps. Valorisation of purely theoretical research can mean that the results have value for another research group, which can then take it a step further. And perhaps three research groups further down the line, it may still reach social research. I do believe that science contributes to society, both directly and indirectly.
How can you integrate valorisation even more into the academic culture?
By talking to current colleagues about valorisation and impact as something that is integrated into their research; it is not something new, but people sometimes have to become aware of what activities go with it. In this way, managers can pass this on to new colleagues. From the start, attention is then paid to impact, so that, for example, a new partner is approached to think along. Another part of valorisation is passing on knowledge from science directly in education to the new generation of professionals we train at VU Amsterdam. Again, that differs per study, but teaching the newest knowledge is always an aim.
How do you see the relationship between education, research and valorisation?
In my research field into children and adults with mild intellectual disabilities and aggression problems, the link between research and education is easy to make. I give lectures to students together with experience experts from the care institution 's Heeren Loo. During these lectures, I talk about the latest scientific research on intellectual disability and the experts by experience tell about their lives with an intellectual disability and all the challenges that come with it. In these lectures, science and practice go hand in hand and we create more value for the students who will then use all this knowledge in practice.
How can impact and valorisation be made more visible?
With the IB-FGB, we want to increasingly show our colleagues what impact means and with which activities you can achieve impact. Also with practical examples, showcases, so that one does not have to reinvent the wheel. We can share knowledge, so that it spreads. Then, impact is not necessarily achieved, but it can be the start of the process. We can also actively approach people who can do something with the knowledge. Or, for example, set up new collaborations or consortia in which the knowledge is used further. Each research field or project can be associated with different activities, which the IB-FGB and IXA are happy to discuss with you.
What would you like to achieve through your role in the IB-FGB?
Firstly, to create awareness among the FGB colleagues of the current good initiatives and activities, which can be expanded and learned from. Secondly, to provide inspiration, to think out-of-the-box, I love brainstorming and the new creative solutions that come out of it: this can be done in any form of research and for any subject.
Your research is highly relevant to society. Let's talk about your impact as a researcher and your valorisation activities. Who are you as a researcher?
I am a scientific researcher, who has always had a strong focus on the usability of my work for people in the practice of healthcare institutions. I find the link between these two perspectives very interesting, and I like to make the connection, translate the knowledge into concrete examples, so that it can be understood by everyone?
Why are you researching this topic?
The interest and motivation to help children as early as possible with their social and behavioural problems and to create opportunities for their development is something I have had since my childhood. As an adolescent, I worked with children with behavioural problems, first in the role of PE teacher within a district with low socio-economic status. During my studies, I started working as a personal counsellor for children with care issues, such as aggression at school. My own curiosity and need for challenge was expressed through research, which taught me to understand and explain behaviour. Fortunately, I have been able to link my PhD and my work to this target group and these subjects.
The video Amsterdam Science & Innovation Award finalist Maaike van Rest: understanding children's perspectives was made on the occasion of AMSIA, in which you tell about your research. How did that come about and what has it brought you?
In 2014, during my PhD, I started working with the business developers and contribution lawyers of IXA and Prof. Masurel of Sustainable Entrepreneurship at the VU. From them, I learned a more business-like way of thinking about my research, and to emphasise the innovative side of my research: developing a diagnostic tool for use in the care of youth with aggression problems with or without a mental disability. The AMSIA was a great step to get involved with that entrepreneurship and innovation from a scientific point of view. In concrete terms, it helped me learn to pitch and write about my research in a way that appeals to a wider audience. Because AMSIA is open to all studies and research fields within Amsterdam, I also learned from many other perspectives: from developing new rubber for a bicycle tyre to perfecting an MRI scanner, and my social-behavioural focus was in between. Everyone wanted to make an impact in some way and help society move forward.
Why do you think it is important to do more than just write academic papers?
I have always felt that 'work should be useful' and preferably to as many people as possible. This is explained by my research field in Pedagogical Sciences: I was taught this way by my parents, of course. So in my academic work, I try to put as much knowledge into action as possible, so that more people can get it and understand it. The basis of my research fits well with this, it is aimed at understanding and explaining, but sometimes also trying to change, human behaviour. This fits in very well with achieving impact, with which we also want to change human behaviour for the better in a way that makes all the preliminary work useful.
From whom have you received advice and coaching?
The advisers and lawyers of IXA, especially Diane Schöller, and Prof. Masurel helped me in the field of entrepreneurship. I also felt supported by my supervisors Prof. Schuengel and Prof. Matthys and co-supervisors Prof. Van Nieuwenhuijzen and Dr. Vriens, who coached me in the link between science and the 'care land'. . The directors of the large healthcare institutions, united in a steering group, who were already involved, also provided me with good advice on the use of the app in the institution.
Is it manageable in terms of time?
I often hear in the academic world that valorisation and impact mainly take time. Actually, that is only true in the short term. But research projects are long-term projects, and that is when time is of the essence! If there are partners in the research from the outset who work with the research and help it land in the right place with the right audience, the researcher does not have to start it all up himself at the end. For me, this means that years ago I invested in partners such as healthcare professionals, IXA and the Hogrefe publishing house to work together on my diagnostic tool for young people. Now we are reaping the rewards, because the instrument has become well-known in different areas. New researchers approached me and wanted to develop new versions, so there is now a Spanish translation that is already being researched by a PhD student in Spain. The publisher in Amsterdam has a sister company there, with whom we are in discussion to publish it. In the Netherlands, an adult version is now being developed within our Academic Workshop, because healthcare professionals asked me for it. I certainly invested time and energy, and started doing so years ago, but in the long run it is now paying off much more.
What do you learn from impact activities that you don't learn in the purely academic world?
The workshops that we hold with the Academic Workshop are a good example. This is how scientists, healthcare professionals, policymakers, experts by experience and their relatives create together: from the beginning of the ideas to the end of a project with products or, for example, new forms of treatment. Everyone learns from a different perspective, because sometimes you think more from one perspective than you realise. Such cooperation breaks through that, everyone takes home different knowledge and applies it to their work. You don't learn that from purely academic work.
The Viveon Academic Workshop is also subsidised on a structural basis (since 2019, by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport), so there are many possibilities.
What would you still like to achieve in the area of impact?
For our faculty FGB and our department, I would like to achieve that people will see impact less as another 'must do' task. By doing it together in teams, and letting people take the lead in this who also have feeling and motivation for this, we can create more attention for each research. That is already a step forward! Ideally, every time a new research project starts, there should be partners involved from practice, business, government, who can use the results after a few years.
How could you help your colleagues who also want to make an impact? Or colleagues who are at the beginning of a similar trajectory/project?
It often starts with concrete examples of collaborations or products that appeal to people. Actually, for years I have been giving "advice" when colleagues ask me questions like "how did you approach that publisher" or about developing a technical app, it happens automatically. The Impact Board of FGB is the official point of contact, with delegates from various departments. The specialised (legal) advice and support is done by IXA, for example if a company is to be started up or a contract drawn up. If this is not necessary, the advice can also be given at the VU department, in our case to Ilja Cornelisz for Education Sciences and to me for Pedagogical Sciences. Then of course we can refer to the right people.
What do you think: should scientists work together more?
I think that we can support each other even more. After all, researchers already have to master so many different activities and skills. In Team-science, you make use of the different talents and motivations of people. You can complement each other, for example in devising a research design, while some are better at analysing it or presenting it. Others excel at applying for grants and writing good articles. People who operate more on the theoretical side of research can also get more attention for their research from the wider public. This works very well in a team. Writing grant applications, for example, is not my favourite thing to do, while a colleague of mine enjoys it and is very good at it: we complement each other.
Your story is an inspiring example and a beautiful success story. Did everything go smoothly?
In my first year of PhD, when a company was developing this app, something went seriously wrong. The company went bankrupt and unfortunately I didn't have any concrete data. The work of a year, the app itself and all the data of the entire pilot with 60 participants had not been saved. I could start all over again, it was terrible. I would never have thought this possible and, of course, I learned a lot from it. Now, of course, I would ask for the data from the beginning, if I don't manage it myself.
We then set up the app again with software developers from the VU (led by Cor Stoof, now also on the Impact Board). It was a lot of work, but it worked.
Watch the Story of Maaike van Rest about the SIVT-app, a good example of a diagnostic tool and knowledge utilisation to serve society.
What is your advice to young scientists?
Above all: persevere! You need a lot of perseverance to get a PhD. You need to be able to see the possibilities all the time and to keep going in the face of setbacks. The same applies to entrepreneurship: you can only make it with a lot of perseverance.