ABSTRACT
While potentially significant, whether simply as recognition for the individual, or group, involved in sharing their knowledge and understanding, or, more notably, for any attention taken of it, there was little reason necessarily to assume that any attention of real note was taken. In general, this activity could be summarised as ‘input’ — as distinct from ‘impact.’ If phenomenological impact is to be excluded, while being acknowledged as a weak form of impact, this leaves the question of procedural impact. Should the clear sense identified in the literature that process is an important aspect of impact give it a place in the typology? The typology permits incorporation of information that goes beyond the narrowest terms of policy and practice. It allows for inclusion of a range of impacts that have relevance and salience. For now, the standards identified to provide a typology — instrumental, conceptual, capacity building and procedural — that goes some way beyond the understanding of most investigators.
