Examples
Worked examples
- Is an instance
An institution reports annual engagement metrics by activity type, partner type and demographic reach.
- Is an instance
A research programme tracks engagement depth via partner co-authorship and shared governance roles.
Counter-examples
Looks similar, but isn't
- Not an instance
Reporting only attendance numbers without context of engagement type or depth.
- Not an instance
Equating altmetric attention with quality engagement without qualitative interpretation.
Editorial commentary
An engagement metric is a quantitative or structured-qualitative indicator capturing the extent, depth, reach, or quality of engagement between researchers and non-academic stakeholders or publics. Engagement metrics complement impact metrics by measuring the intermediate processes — the relationships and activity — that often precede a measurable outcome, rather than the outcome itself.
Common indicators
Common indicators include numbers of engagement events, participant counts, demographic reach, follow-up or repeat engagement, partner co-development, stakeholder advisory-board composition, and altmetric attention. The NCCPE’s EDGE tool maps public engagement at institutional level, so an organisation can benchmark its engagement infrastructure rather than relying only on activity counts.
How research organisations actually evidence this
Two concrete evidencing routes are worth knowing precisely. In the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF), impact case studies require narrative evidence of the underlying engagement process and its reach and significance, not just a headline figure — a REF panel expects the engagement metric to be traceable to a specific claim about a specific pathway, not asserted in the abstract. Altmetric attention scores are the second common route, but they carry known limits: the underlying platforms change unilaterally (X/Twitter’s data-access mechanics have changed materially since 2023, with paid API tiers now generally required to hydrate mentions at volume), scores can be volatile for reasons unrelated to research quality, and a high score measures attention, not engagement depth or quality.
What this means for research administration
Report engagement metrics alongside qualitative narrative describing engagement type and depth, not counts alone, and treat altmetric attention as one weak signal among several rather than a proxy for engagement quality — equating the two is a common and avoidable evidencing mistake.
References
- NCCPE, EDGE tool.
- UKRI, Research Excellence Framework impact case study guidance.
Also known as
Engagement indicator · Engagement KPI
Machine-readable encodings
Use in your systems
<role vocab="credit"
vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
vocab-term="Engagement metric"
vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/engagement-metric" />{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "DefinedTerm",
"@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/engagement-metric",
"name": "Engagement metric",
"identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/engagement-metric",
"description": "A quantitative or structured-qualitative indicator capturing the extent, depth, reach or quality of engagement between researchers and non-academic stakeholders or publics.",
"inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/engagement-impact-sdg#set",
"url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/engagement-metric",
"sameAs": [
"Engagement indicator",
"Engagement KPI"
],
"license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
"publisher": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
},
"dateModified": "2026-08-23T04:43:23",
"inLanguage": "en"
}
