When Technology Assessment (TA) takes impact seriously, it is not just about measurement, but about understanding, shaping and accountability. EffekTA aims to understand impact, not to prove it. This is a deliberate departure from impact frameworks, which treat impact as a measurable outcome. Impact in TA arises from negotiation processes between actors, expectations, forms of knowledge and institutional frameworks. It is often indirect, delayed and context-dependent. EffekTA investigates how these processes unfold, why they sometimes succeed and why they sometimes come to nothing.

Normative dimension: What kind of impact do we want to achieve?

In TA, a positive impact is not measured by efficiency or reach. It is evident in the way participants view a problem differently, recognise new connections, or redistribute responsibility. Here, impact is not about meeting targets, but a question of attitude and the quality of the process. EffekTA asks: What does a positive impact mean, and who determines that?

Methodological dimension: What kind of impact can we measure?

Many key impacts, such as shifts in trust, institutional rethinking or collective learning, cannot be quantified. They become visible at specific points in the process: when results are translated into action, when organisations act differently, or when participants describe in retrospect what has changed. EffekTA reconstructs impact qualitatively, through case studies, process support and discussions with participants.

Communicative dimension: Which impacts do we make visible – and for whom?

Impact must be communicated not only externally but also internally, as a feedback loop for our own practice. Making impact visible here means not only providing evidence, but also gaining insights.  EffekTA investigates how impact is communicated to different audiences – funding bodies, practice partners and the research community itself – and develops formats that go beyond standardised reporting.

Ethical dimension: What impacts can or should we take responsibility for?

Participatory formats carry risks such as overwhelming participants, causing disappointment or leading to symbolic participation. Taking responsibility for impact means reflecting on unintended consequences and recognising when the desire for impact turns into overreach. Not every impact is desirable; non-impact can be part of scientific integrity. Sometimes the most responsible approach is not to seek impact at all, for instance when participation remains symbolic or when expectations are raised that cannot be met.

The Temporality of Impact: When Does What Take Effect?

Impact is neither uniform nor one-dimensional. It can be short-term or long-term, direct or indirect, intended or emergent. Many TA formats produce an effect in the moment, as a jolt, a shift in perspective or a new insight. Such immediate responses are no less valuable than lasting changes. EffekTA examines how different temporalities of impact interact and why the assumption that long-term impact is always best falls short.

How does ‘non-impact’ arise – and what can we learn from it?

Non-impact is not an exception, but an everyday experience. It arises when impulses fizzle out or slide off structures. Investigating it sheds light on how impact arises – and under what conditions it is prevented. Research into non-impact would be productive: it would rethink the relationship between knowledge and society. EffekTA examines non-impact as a phenomenon in its own right: How does it arise, what patterns can be identified, and what does it reveal about the conditions under which knowledge resonates with society – or fails to do so? We are interested not only in the side of knowledge production, but also in the reception side: what happens when institutions evade observation, when political contexts shift, or when formats and audiences fail to connect?