Developed by the International Arts + Mind Lab at Johns Hopkins University, Impact Thinking is a translational research approach to enhance human potential in health, wellbeing and learning through the arts.
For 20 years, the neuroaesthetics field has studied the neurobiology of the arts and its specific impact on brain development and behavior. While there remains much to discover, we are beginning to learn more about how our brains process aesthetic experiences and the basic mechanisms that underlie these behaviors, paving the way for better use of aesthetics in health, wellbeing and learning.
Still, the neuroaesthetics field is diverse and diffuse. Drawing from disciplines as varied as neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, psychiatry, public health, anthropology, humanities, architecture, music, and education, it is perhaps unsurprising that neuroaesthetics research has yet to find its common core.
While there is much compelling research to point to, a growing body of disconnected studies has left few high-quality data sets, standardized measures, or implementation protocols from which to build. Small sample sizes and a reliance on observational data have limited researchers’ ability to make claims about the effectiveness of arts-based interventions or influence evidence-based practice broadly. A separation of research and practice keeps many potentially life-changing findings firmly in the academic realm and out of reach of the clinicians, practitioners and caretakers eager to apply them.
To make truly groundbreaking discoveries that translate into changes in policy and practice, researchers and practitioners across diverse disciplines need a common process for discovering, evaluating, refining, replicating, and scaling successful neuroaesthetics interventions. Beyond a theoretical frame, this work needs an organizing mechanism that facilitates collaboration across disciplines and organizes key data sets, measures, findings, and experts for the field.
One of IAM Lab’s first major contributions is Impact Thinking, a consensus framework that applies rigorous brain science research methods to arts, architecture and music interventions by engaging a broad and multidisciplinary team. Beginning with a problem identification workshop and collaborative discovery process and concluding with dissemination and scaling, Impact Thinking is designed to build open-source capacity and expertise and a research-to-practice pipeline for arts + mind research focused on impact. Impact Thinking was developed through collaboration with an interdisciplinary team of nearly three dozen scientists and practitioners.
- Creates a common language and translational framework for multidisciplinary work
- Can be used to improve or evaluate existing programs / interventions as well as build and test new programs and interventions
- Engages a broad, multidisciplinary team
- Is designed to get research to practice faster and with more fidelity
- Includes a strong focus on communication and dissemination throughout the research project
What makes Impact Thinking different and essential?
Impact Thinking makes the translational scientific process inclusive, relevant and actionable. It moves beyond studies that begin and end in a lab to solve real-world, urgent problems and pave a path for broad implementation. For example: How can playing music ease the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease? How can architecture and design reduce chronic stress in the workplace?
Impact Thinking is based on the fundamental values of collaboration, transparency and follow through and the belief that applied neuroaesthetics can change the world. Impact Thinking projects are initiated by an Impact Team of a brain scientist and a practitioner in an arts discipline. Each project is facilitated by a project coordinator and supported by advisors, dissemination experts and community stakeholders. Impact Thinking:
- Begins with an open and inclusive problem identification process, engaging a broad, interdisciplinary team in collaborative discovery that transcends academic literature
- Pairs scientists and practitioners to conduct evaluations together
- Is focused on impact in health, wellbeing and learning
- Leads to dissemination beyond academic publishing–targeted to practitioners to spread and scale best practices
- Builds a base of case studies, research and capacity to grow the field
Impact Thinking Framework
Step One: Problem Identification
Problem identification brings together a representative group of stakeholders engaged in a given topic to workshop key issues in a field, project or program. Ideally, this group includes representatives of all potential stakeholders in the issue, which may include researchers, clinicians, practitioners, and community members, as well as representatives from ancillary fields.
Questions may include:
- Who is the target population? Who are the potential audiences?
- What are their needs/problems?
- What’s our audacious vision and goal?
- What are we already measuring? What do we know? What could we measure?
- What are our potential research questions, and what would that research look like?
- Who else needs to weigh in?
- What’s our budget? What are our primary cost drivers for research?
- What is the problem we should solve?
Step 2: Collaborative Discovery
Phase two of Impact Thinking is a collaborative discovery process, defined by a widening purview to examine the identified problem from multiple angles and disciplinary perspectives. It includes traditional literature review, non-traditional practice scans, interviews with subject matter experts, and documentation of potential outcome measures (behavioral and biological) based on indicators of the problem. Collaborative discovery values learning from both traditional academic sources and practical and applied sources. Most importantly, collaborative discovery reaches beyond the initial group of stakeholders and fields most closely related to the issue to engage a multidisciplinary team of advisers and dissemination experts. This phase concludes with a Discovery Report of findings and recommendations.
Step 3: Hypothesis Development
Based on the Discovery report, the Impact Team develops and tests the face validity of a number of hypothesized solutions, considering impacts at the individual, organizational, field, and even societal levels. The hypothesized solution must be replicable and/or scalable with implications for a broad population.
Step 4: Research Design
The Impact Team reviews methodologies and assessments used in previous neuroaesthetics research with a goal of extending previous research or generating comparable data. Then, the team designs a truly collaborative research design with involvement from both brain scientists and practitioners. This may include occupational therapists, teachers, architects, program leaders, etc., as relevant.
Step 5: Research Implementation
The Impact Thinking model brings a variety of supports to the Impact Team during research implementation. The advisory team act as independent reviewers, which the project coordinator catalogs data in a standard format. The dissemination team observes and documents the research implementation to inform mid-course communications and lessons learned about the work for research and practice audiences. Throughout the research implementation, Impact Team members document their experiences, struggles and reflections to generate lessons learned for future teams.
Step 6: Analysis
Once the intervention and data collection are complete, the Impact Team conducts an initial analysis of data and shares findings with the advisory team. Depending on the findings, the Impact Team may decide that more data collection is necessary or move on to reporting and recommendations.
Step 7: Refine, Retest, Recommend
If initial analysis warrants, step seven includes refining and retesting the solution to increase understanding. Once complete, the Impact Team writes a report, drawing from its Discovery Report and Impact Thinking workbook to detail the process, methods, findings and recommendations for practitioners, researchers and policymakers. A stakeholder team is brought in to review and provide feedback.
Step 8: Dissemination and Scaling
As a research-to-practice approach, Impact Thinking culminates with a multi-faceted dissemination and scaling effort. Efforts must go beyond academic journals to practitioner and policymaker-focused media, events and networks, as informed by the advisory and dissemination teams. If the intervention is deemed successful, the Impact Team will assess and recommend opportunities for scaling the solution, which may include training/capacity building; replication and expansion.
Impact Thinking Projects
Hypothesis: Moving hands, arms and fingers rhythmically on the guitar to make music will benefit arm and hand function and cognition in individuals with Parkinson’s Disease.
In partnership with the Center for Music and Medicine at Johns Hopkins, this project brings together neurologists and musicians for a unique set of guitar lessons specifically designed for people with Parkinson’s disease. Participants are randomly assigned to treatment and control groups and assessed at the outset and every six weeks (for 18 weeks) on a variety of self-report and performance-based measures, including mood, social participation, cognition and arm and hand function.
Kennedy Krieger Children’s Hospital Sensory Healing Room
Hypothesis: By creating a personalized and evidence-based sensory healing room, we can improve the quality of sleep and reduce waking agitation among children with disorders of consciousness.
This project brings together architects with a variety of medical and health professionals and key stakeholders ranging from neurologists to neuropsychologists, physical therapists, child life experts and parents to build a better hospital room for children who are waking up from a coma. A primary goal is to promote regular sleep/wake cycles by regulating light and sounds and minimizing background noise and other disruptions. This project also explores the role of personalized sensory inputs such as visual projections, scents and sounds in reducing patient agitation.
Hypothesis: Programming in a community arts center can have a measurable impact on health, wellbeing and learning outcomes across the lifespan.
Creative Alliance, a nonprofit community performing arts and arts education center in Baltimore, is expanding into a new community Creativity Center. The Impact Thinking project seeks to design and pilot test evidence-based signature programs for the Creativity Center for public school students and aging adults.
Tailored Activity Program
Hypothesis: A tailored arts activity program in an outpatient setting can reduce agitation and aggression in patients with dementia.
TAP extends research on a Johns Hopkins Bayview Nursing program that trained family members to lead tailored arts activities at home. The Impact Thinking project adapts the TAP protocol for application to person’s with dementia in an outpatient day program (the Hopkins ElderPlus program) and gathers pilot data on the potential biological underpinnings of the TAP intervention.
Arts and Technology for Tenderness
Hypothesis: Music can reduce stress and trauma.
This ultimate goal of this project, led by The Vatican, is to study the effect of music to reduce stress and enhance a state of calm for high needs communities around the world including refugees and people in conflict areas. This pilot project in Cremona, Italy tests the effects of sacred music on audiences using EEG, biosensors and self reporting.