Making EDI research impactful: introducing a new article category Open Access

Efforts to advance Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI ^[1]) have gained significant attention around the world, spurred by social justice movements (such as Black Lives Matter and Me Too), demographic shifts, and increasing recognition of systemic inequities. While public attention often focuses on the developments in the US, where high profile political polarization and policy rollbacks have shaped national discourse, similar tensions have emerged globally. For instance, Scandinavian debates around gender equity policies (Adamson et al., 2023) and ongoing efforts to expand equitable access to education in parts of Africa (Li and Marom, 2024) exemplify that EDI challenges manifest differently across boundaries and geopolitical contexts.

Many corporations, educational institutions, and government agencies have invested heavily in EDI initiatives, focusing on recruitment, retention, and creating more equitable policies. In the US, since the murder of George Floyd, corporations have collectively pledged $50 billion to address racial inequity and promote EDI initiatives. While these pledges were significant, progress remains uneven (Jan et al., 2021). Although metrics and accountability mechanisms are improving, achieving meaningful, systemic change remains an ongoing struggle for EDI. EDI initiatives are complex and multifaceted, and it is difficult to definitively measure their success or impact (Milanesi, 2023; Tomaskovic-Devey et al., 2025). Many challenges to EDI initiatives persist, including resistance to change, inconsistent implementation, and critiques of performative activism (Dobbin and Kalev, 2016; Ng et al., 2025). Political polarization, particularly in the U.S., has further complicated EDI’s efficacy, with critics framing it as divisive rather than restorative (Ellis, 2025). Backlash against EDI has emerged in many states (e.g. Florida, Texas), restricting discussions of race and gender identity in public institutions. Many companies have rolled back their EDI initiatives, particularly in the face of these criticisms and political pressures (Spector, 2025). The assessment of research impact on EDI outcomes continues to be difficult, yet understanding the outcomes of EDI initiatives is vital.

Research impact captures how scholarship generates real-world benefits beyond traditional citation-based metrics (Crompton, 2025). It informs policy decisions, addresses societal challenges, and improves lives. For instance, research in healthcare drives better public health outcomes (Kuruvilla et al., 2006), while studies in environmental science influence climate governance and conservation (Cortner, 2000). By emphasizing research impact, institutions and funding bodies can ensure that scholarly work translates into tangible outcomes, meeting the needs of communities as well as those of business, industry, and organizations, thereby fostering innovation and advancing more equitable, evidence-based practices.

The significance of research impact is particularly pronounced in EDI, where studies identify systemic inequalities and inform inclusive policies. EDI research strengthens fairness across workplaces, educational institutions, and communities. For example, research on gender and racial disparities has shaped corporate diversity initiatives and legislative reforms (Ng and Burke, 2010; Triana et al., 2021). By measuring and amplifying the impact of EDI research, policymakers and management leaders can demonstrate its relevance and advocate for continued investment.

Research impact also deepens engagement between researchers and the public, fostering collaboration and engagement, and discourse (Lavis et al., 2004; Pieczka and Escobar, 2013). This engagement not only enhances the visibility of research but also builds trust in evidence-based solutions. In an era marked by misinformation and polarization, prioritizing impact underscores the importance of credible, data-driven insights reaffirm academia’s role in societal progress.

Importantly, we need to demonstrate the impact of EDI research because our field is rooted in addressing systemic inequities and enabling meaningful change (Van Buren et al., 2024). Research provides evidence-based insights that inform policies and practices. By translating findings into actionable practice, EDI research enables organizations, policymakers, and communities to implement practical interventions that advance inclusion. Moreover, research shapes public discourse, countering misinformation and fostering a deeper understanding of the importance of equity. Yet, EDI research sometimes struggles to achieve meaningful impact due to challenges in translating knowledge to practice, methods for assessing impact, and accountability.

However, unlike traditional scholarly metrics, such as citation counts or journal impact factors, that privilege academic prestige (Araci and Ozbilgin, 2025; Ng, 2024), EDI research ought to prioritize impactful outcomes, such as reduced disparities in socioeconomic levels, improved access to education and the labor market, and policy reforms that advance equity. Measuring and communicating impact ensures accountability, for research partners and collaborators ^[2], including marginalized communities, policymakers, and organizations. Increasingly collaborators demand evidence that EDI initiatives translate into meaningful progress rather than performative and symbolic gestures. Traditional scholarly metrics do not capture lived experiences, intersectional complexities, or long-term systemic change (Araci and Ozbilgin, 2025; MacIntosh et al., 2017). For instance, studies on workplace bias might be widely cited yet never inform anti-discrimination training programs (Metinyurt et al., 2021). By centering on impact, EDI research can bridge the gap between scholarship and practice, ensuring that findings inform interventions, resource allocation, and advocacy efforts that dismantle structural barriers. As Ella L.J. Bell noted, “you can’t dismantle racism through research [alone]” (private event, June 25, 2025). The significance of EDI research must also go beyond statistics and data (Gwanmesia, 2024).

As scholars and researchers, we play a key role in supporting more equitable environments across diverse societies (Bates and Ng, 2021). EDI research drives organizational change by uncovering systemic inequities and offering evidence-based strategies for dismantling them (Nittrouer et al., 2025). By recognizing the root causes of bias, discrimination, and lack of representation, EDI research provides a roadmap for more targeted interventions. These interventions, ranging from bias training, inclusive selection practices, mentorship, and leadership development programs, are designed to create inclusive and equitable environments. Moreover, continuous evaluation of these interventions, guided by research, enables organizations to adapt and refine their EDI efforts, ensuring that they are effective, impactful, and aligned with their evolving goals and values.

Organizations have leveraged EDI research findings to drive meaningful change. For instance, in healthcare, the nursing profession implemented EDI programs combined with policy changes, resulting in improved patient satisfaction scores among marginalized groups and higher retention of diverse staff (Williams et al., 2025). In the technology sector, firms are deploying data analytics to identify pay disparities have successfully improved pay equity and transparency (Ahmed and Aloro, 2025). Educational institutions adopting inclusive curricula and participatory governance models have seen increased student engagement and reduced dropout rates among underrepresented populations (Bartlett and Schugurensky, 2024; Jani, 2022). These examples demonstrate that blending evidence-based strategies with organizational commitment can translate EDI research into actionable, impactful interventions. Ultimately, EDI research helps institutions move beyond performative gestures towards substantive, sustainable change.

Advancing the impact of EDI research requires a multifaceted approach that extends beyond traditional academic metrics to embrace practical, ethical, and context-sensitive considerations. To truly foster systemic change, EDI research must incorporate robust methodologies for measuring impact, draw from diverse global perspectives, and address the complex, intersectional realities of marginalized populations. This entails overcoming persistent barriers, leveraging technological innovations (i.e. Gen-AI) responsibly, and fostering community-led participatory approaches that amplify constituent voices. Moreover, sustaining meaningful progress calls for embedding EDI principles into institutional cultures and policies, supported by reflective use of inclusive language and ongoing collaboration among constituents.

However, EDI research often encounters multifaceted barriers that hamper its translation into practice. Unconscious biases within both researchers and institutions can skew study designs, limiting inclusivity and relevance (Ng, 2023). Limited funding and resources frequently constrain the scope and longevity of impactful initiatives, while resistance from organizational leadership or cultural inertia creates additional obstacles, as does balancing diverse constituent expectations (Goode, 2024). Furthermore, engaging marginalized communities authentically requires overcoming historical mistrust, linguistic differences, and power imbalances. Addressing these challenges demands intentional strategies including transparent communication, co-creation of research agendas, capacity building, and securing leadership buy-in to foster a supportive environment for EDI progress.

Language shapes how EDI issues are conceptualized and addressed. The evolving terminology within EDI research reflects shifting values and power relations. For instance, moving away from the term “stakeholder” to more inclusive language acknowledges the need for equitable participation and respect for community agency. Researchers must critically engage with the language they use to avoid perpetuating exclusionary or stigmatizing narratives. This reflexivity extends to terminology around identity, oppression, and inclusion, ensuring that language choices amplify marginalized voices and foster respectful dialogue (see Ply et al., 2005; Reed et al., 2025). Clear, consistent, and culturally sensitive language enhances the credibility and impact of EDI scholarship.

EDI research impact is inherently influenced by cultural and geopolitical contexts (Fitzsimmons et al., 2023). Systemic inequities manifest differently across societies, shaped by historical legacies, legal frameworks, and social norms (Klarsfeld et al., 2014, 2016). For example, gender equity challenges in Scandinavian countries may center on work-life balance policies (Adamson et al., 2023), while in some African contexts, access to education may be the primary barrier (Li and Marom, 2024). Cross-cultural EDI research requires culturally sensitive methodologies and collaborations with local stakeholders to avoid ethnocentric biases (Ng and Klarsfeld, 2018). In this respect, recognizing diverse value systems and contextualizing findings enhances the relevance and effectiveness of interventions, contributing to more globally relevant and impactful practices and policies.

Measuring the impact of EDI research requires a combination of quantitative and qualitative or mixed methodologies tailored to capture complex social dynamics (Ng and Klarsfeld, 2018). Standard metrics, such as changes in representation percentages or retention rates, provide tangible indicators of progress (Ng et al., 2021). However, qualitative tools (e.g. interviews, focus groups, and ethnographic observations) offer deeper insight into experiences and cultural shifts. Mixed-method approaches enable researchers to triangulate findings, ensuring robust evaluation. Innovative frameworks, such as Social Return on Investment (SROI) (see Scelles et al., 2025 for an example) and longitudinal impact assessments, help chart both immediate and sustained effects. Adopting adaptable, context-sensitive metrics is essential because EDI outcomes often manifest in nuanced and evolving ways that traditional measures may overlook.

Participatory action research can also empower marginalized communities as co-creators rather than passive subjects of study, enhancing the legitimacy and impact of EDI research. By involving constituents in defining research questions, data collection, and interpretation, researchers build trust and produce knowledge grounded in lived experiences. This approach fosters capacity building within communities and ensures that outcomes are relevant and actionable. Participatory methods can also disrupt traditional power imbalances in academia, promoting more equitable knowledge production and social transformation aligned with community priorities. Waariyo et al. (2026) propose a EDI Community of Practice (CoP) that leverages participatory models to unlock meaningful value by facilitating knowledge exchange, collaboration, and skill development. They highlight that knowledge mobilization and EDI are interconnected and mutually reinforcing processes, both crucial for achieving significant societal impact and advancing equity in research and practice. Central to this effort is a co-designed EDI Action Plan that promotes equitable participation, inclusive programming, and capacity building among a diverse range of stakeholders, including employment providers, researchers, policymakers, and industry representatives.

Sustaining EDI impact requires intentional integration into organizational culture, policies, and leadership accountability structures. Short-term successes, while important, risk dissipating without reinforcement and continuous evaluation (Washington, 2022). Embedding EDI goals within performance metrics, leadership development, and resource allocation fosters enduring change. Ongoing training, transparent reporting, and feedback loops help maintain momentum and adaptability. Additionally, fostering allyship and collective responsibility across all organizational levels ensures that EDI is not siloed but part of the institutional DNA, thereby embedding equity as a lasting priority (Stephenson, 2024).

Following the lead of Professors Keeling and Marshall in the European Journal of Marketing (See Volume 56, Issue 9), we are excited to introduce a similar new article category, referred to as “Impact Articles,” in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal (EDI Journal). The purpose of impact articles is “to facilitate knowledge exchange about impact, not the underlying conceptualization and methodologies of the research, but the challenge of designing, developing, tracking, and demonstrating impact, that is, the change itself” (Keeling and Marshall, 2022, p. 2511). Keeling and Marshall highlight that Impact Articles can enhance the value of research in addition to scientific contributions. In this respect, research impact is a driver of systemic change for EDI. The change can manifest in various forms, including quantitative and qualitative changes, short-term vs. long-term impacts, and intended vs. unintended consequences.

Keeling and Marshall (2022) identified five core elements that form an impact article. They include identifying the impact to be achieved, working with partners and collaborators, co-creation and learning, impact outcomes, and the ethics of impact. We adapt these elements to reflect their relevance to EDI. The impact article framework not only maximizes the relevance and reach of EDI research, but also ensures that its outcomes contribute to lasting, equitable transformation across societies and organizations. These elements should guide future impact article submissions to the journal (see Table 1).

In addition to communicating about impact, EDI Journal has invited contributions to a set of Impact Articles that also make explicit how academics are intentional in creating impact. Here are some of the insights generated from each of the impact articles.

Van Dijk discusses mental and institutional barriers to creating impactful work beyond traditional academic publications. He shares his experiences when developing and writing about a New Inclusion Theory (NIT) through the Including Behavior Institute. His scholarly efforts have led to training programs, train-the-trainer initiatives, talks, research projects, and academic papers through the Including Behavior Institute. Of note, van Dijk raises several mental and institutional challenges when engaging in non-scholarly impact endeavors. He cites an ingrained belief that publishing must come before non-scholarly impact, difficulty prioritizing non-scholarly impact, and a lack of guidance for creating such impact. Similarly, the desired form of impact does not always align with institutional demands. Van Dijk notes a lack of incentives and rewards for non-scholarly impact and a lack of resources to support non-scholarly impact work, discouraging academics from engaging in non-scholarly impact work. He overcame these barriers by becoming aware of their nature and acknowledging his role in them. Academic institutions should remove barriers to non-scholarly impact, support such initiatives, and recognize the synergetic effects of different forms of impact. He suggests that researchers and academic institutions have a moral obligation to give back to society and reduce social inequities through impactful work beyond research and teaching.

Liu and Taylor share their motivations for engaging in a knowledge mobilization project, a website that disseminates resources and facilitates activities for scholar-activists, and through it, describe their experiences co-creating impact as creators and community members. The website is focused on Liu’s intersectional feminism scholarship, with blog posts, a mailing list, and resources for subscribers. Former and current women academics were drawn to the website due to struggles with overwork, burnout, and violence in academia. The project provided space for community members to reimagine themselves as leaders, challenge masculinist models of leadership, and enact change. The website offered scholarly ideas for a wider audience, resources for educators, and for marginalized doctoral candidates. The members shared experiences, asked for feedback, and promoted the website within their institutions. However, it also placed a heavy burden on the website’s creator, who bore most of the responsibilities. There is a lack of institutional support and recognition for the work of knowledge mobilization. The creator experienced burnout from managing the community and attending to its members’ needs. The website was subsequently taken offline. The labor of maintaining the community proved unsustainable without strong structures of co-ownership and shared responsibility. Universities could play a more active role in co-creating and sponsoring interventions that make a meaningful impact in empowering their workers to engage in knowledge mobilization.

Fitzsimmons and colleagues detail a research approach that created impact through suspending assumptions of Western research methods and positioning Indigenous research partners as experts and co-creators of the research process. Indigenous women rangers report that their leadership voice is under-recognized relative to White and Indigenous males. The research methodology centered on Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing in its design and positioned Indigenous partners as experts. They adopted dadirri and yarning circles to collect data through culturally safe methods that privilege Indigenous knowledge systems. The research project balanced Western and Indigenous knowledge systems. The research aims to understand and uplift Indigenous women’s leadership, which emphasizes the importance of decolonizing research methodologies and ensuring ethical engagement with Indigenous communities. Non-Indigenous researchers have a journey of learning, unlearning, and partnering on Indigenous terms.

Muhr and Storm discuss the impact and implications of using the GenderLAB method, an intervention-based research method, at a Big Four accounting firm. The authors explore how qualitative interventions can create both immediate and sustained change within organizations, expanding the notion of research impact beyond academic publications. Their intervention (GenderLAB Method) combines norm-critical approaches with design thinking to change norms and attitudes and produce local solutions. The method was tested at a Danish branch of a Big Four accounting firm struggling with gender diversity. The focus shifted to “diversity of thought” to mitigate potential backlash. The intervention, undertaken for research with the accounting firm, took place during a leadership summit. Employee participants co-created solutions, and the results were compiled into an idea catalogue. The impact was immediate: there were shifts in conversations and perspectives among participants during the intervention. Long-term, the firm implemented solutions identified from the intervention. There was greater awareness among the firm’s leaders about inclusivity and the need for change. The authors advocate for a research approach that prioritizes the needs and well-being of the research participants, with a focus on leaving research sites in a better state than they were found.

Cukier and colleagues describe the impact of the Inclusive Innovation and Entrepreneurship Network (IIE-Net) project, which aims to advance inclusion for entrepreneurs from equity-deserving groups within entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystems. The IIE-Net project utilizes the Critical Ecology Model, which identifies actors and factors at the societal, organizational and individual levels. It brings together researchers and practitioners to create change for more inclusion in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The project engages with over 45 faculty members, 100 partner organizations, women entrepreneurship support organizations, government departments, and universities. The collaborative effort builds a more inclusive research team. The network had significant infrastructure to support ecosystem mapping and outreach. It shifts local investments to SMEs as spillover multiplier effects are higher on the local community than from investments into large corporations. By focusing on the unique barriers that certain groups face, individuals from diverse backgrounds were able to participate in the entrepreneurship ecosystem.

All the papers in this Special Issue demonstrate moving beyond solely relying on traditional academic measures (e.g. publications, citations) when assessing impact. The contributions emphasize practical changes within organizations, communities, and policy (see Table 2). For example, Muhr and Storm (2026) highlight an intervention-based research that led to improvements in a Big Four accounting firm. Liu and Taylor (2026) showcase how a digital platform empowered scholar-activists by providing resources and community support to challenge oppressive structures. Similarly, Fitzsimmons et al. (2026) illustrate how research with Indigenous women fostered empowerment and reimagined knowledge systems. These examples underscore a broader commitment to practical, socially meaningful outcomes.

The impact articles also underscore the importance of collaboration and co-creation in research, emphasizing the active involvement of constituents and community members throughout the process. For instance, Fitzsimmons et al. (2026) highlight the co-production of knowledge with Indigenous women rangers, recognizing them as expert researchers and valuing their lived experiences. Similarly, Cukier et al. (2026) work closely with partners to identify and address barriers faced by underrepresented Canadians, reinforcing the idea that inclusive research must be grounded in shared understanding and mutual engagement (Aguinis and Gibson, 2025).

Several authors thoughtfully address the ethical dimensions of conducting research with marginalized communities, emphasizing the importance of transparency, reciprocity, and a commitment to leaving research sites better than they were found. For example, Muhr and Storm (2026) explore the question of researcher responsibility, prompting reflection on who researchers are accountable to throughout the process. Fitzsimmons et al. (2026) emphasize the critical role of trust-building in ethical engagement, particularly when working with Indigenous communities, reinforcing the need for respectful and mutually beneficial relationships in collaborative research.

These impact articles collectively confront systemic issues within organizations and broader societal structures while making meaningful contributions to EDI. Through such efforts, the research challenges dominant systems and promotes more inclusive environments. These articles also raise awareness of the unique challenges faced by marginalized groups, offering alternative perspectives that disrupt inequitable narratives. In addition to demonstrating impact, the impact articles presented here also provide practical tools and strategies applicable across organizations, communities, and policy settings, and empower marginalized voices by building capacity and creating spaces for leadership. Together, impact articles can serve as a useful platform for transformative change that is socially impactful.

Impact articles offer significant benefits in articulating the value of research by moving beyond traditional academic metrics to demonstrate real-world change. They provide concrete examples of how research can influence policy and practice, making scholarly work more accessible and actionable. By incorporating diverse perspectives and expertise, these articles enhance the legitimacy and relevance of the research, ensuring it resonates with broader audiences. They also foster stronger relationships between researchers and constituents, encouraging collaboration and mutual learning. Importantly, impact articles draw attention to the ethical considerations of engaging with marginalized communities in EDI research, while promoting research practices grounded in transparency, reciprocity, and respect. This approach not only strengthens the integrity of the research but also contributes meaningfully to advancing equity and inclusion goals.

At the same time, generating non-scholarly impact in research presents a range of challenges that can complicate both the process and its evaluation. Individual scholars, institutions, and accreditation bodies collectively influence what counts and what doesn’t in research (Aguinis et al., 2021; Finch et al., 2019). van Dijk (2026) outlines the psychological and institutional obstacles that hinder non-scholarly impact work, which in turn highlights the misalignment between institutional aspirations and reward systems. Measuring impact quantitatively is often difficult, and attributing specific changes directly to the research can be unclear, especially when multiple factors are at play. Researchers may also face bias in interpreting the impact of their scholarship, and the work itself can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. Ensuring equitable participation requires careful management of power dynamics and navigating conflicting priorities among partners, while balancing the needs of the research and the researchers. Ethical complexities further add to the challenge, as researchers must continuously reflect and adapt to uphold principles like transparency, reciprocity, and respect. Additionally, competing ethical obligations to different constituent groups can create tension, making it essential to approach non-scholarly impact with sensitivity, flexibility, and a deep commitment to ethical engagement.

In summary, these collection of impact articles offer valuable insights and strategies for advancing EDI. By prioritizing practical impact, centering marginalized voices, and embracing collaborative approaches, they contribute to fairer and more equitable societies. It is crucial to acknowledge the challenges involved and address them proactively to ensure that EDI efforts are effective.

The authors acknowledge partial support for the preparation of this manuscript from the Smith Professorship in Equity and Inclusion in Business at Queen’s University.