## Highlights - > Even when research repositories are well-established and building up amazing content — if no one has a clear understanding of where those insights are flowing, they may be viewed as dead ends. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hm7m2bfbcbzwvvwwvpraftfy)) ^rw661182822 - Citation in product development isn’t an academic problem; it’s about research making more of a difference for the people we’re striving to serve. It’s about visible connective tissue between insights and outcome — maintaining a line from spark to feature. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hm7m1xdv1gbhybk4ag9ve8sn)) ^rw661182507 - As dry as standardized citations may seem, **making research more visible in more places can become a launch pad for even greater impacts.** Once folks have seen references in use, the improved transparency can lead to a growth in research literacy and an increased appetite for starting projects with research. Common use of citations can move research from a ‘momentary, optional inspiration’ toward ‘durable fuel for product planning.’ Researchers can see how their outputs are being consumed, and they can choose to help shape and amplify those next steps, correcting any customer misconceptions and adding context. And deep-linking repositories into insight consumers’ own workspaces builds a shared ‘laboratory notebook’ of evidence and ideas that can fuel product-led growth. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hm7m1t0h0d026n6pmrysfa44)) ^rw661182438 - Collect a range of product teams’ deliverables and discuss which product development locations would be ideal for research citations to have impact. Create citation patterns that could fit within these locations, ranging from minimal, named links to more descriptive formats — such as an ‘embedded insight’ that includes anonymized customer quotes, related links, and other content. Explore language for cases where insights are being ‘solved’ versus cases where insights are only ‘informing.’ Develop strategies to ensure that citation links will not turn into dead ends over time. Consider how your new patterns can reflect a larger brand for existing research. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hm7m0s6hwprmdv6rdf6aft2t)) ^rw661182106 - Ask leaders to support the changes needed to enable citations — including updates to tooling and workflows. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hm7m067vcbpc9fa3cewndc0w)) ^rw661182073 - **Inspecting, iterating, amplifying, and expanding use of repository citations** Search internal tools for citations, sharing new references with your research contributor community. Explore automation for these monitoring and reporting efforts. Evaluate where any citation blockers are occurring and iterate your standards and approaches (e.g. could other deliverables or processes be more impactful targets?) ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hm7kzbtxdhbf09s86p4mdewk)) ^rw661182008 - “When talking about measuring the impact, we have pretty good analytics so we can see whether people are reading stuff or linking to pages… The last part I’d add is — it helps if there is a leader in the organization who’s creating some pressure for people to either be consuming or linking to the research. If there’s a leader in the organization who says something around not wanting to see any proposals for new features without links to good research. Something as simple as that can create a habit where non-researchers are incentivized to show the research behind, or justify, why they’re making a decision. The impact this can have is, all of a sudden your research knowledge management tool is an asset to them and solving a problem that they have.” [Matt Duignan](https://medium.com/u/3629383c5d33?source=post_page-----b646ff04cb7d--------------------------------) , Lisa Nguyen [https://dovetailapp.com/blog/microsoft-hits-question-answer-matt-duignan/](https://dovetailapp.com/blog/microsoft-hits-question-answer-matt-duignan/) ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hm7kx0k41x20wjjtdjsa8jpa)) ^rw661181222 - “When measuring outcomes, moving beyond measuring whether research knowledge is used in decision making to measuring how research knowledge is used becomes important (Pelz 1978; Weiss 1979). Research knowledge may be used in instrumental, conceptual, or symbolic ways. Instrumental use is defined as acting on research in specific and direct ways, such as to solve a particular problem at hand (e.g., developing the first iteration of Medicare’s “Resource-Based Relative Value Scale” physician fee schedule). Conceptual use involves a more general and indirect form of enlightenment (e.g., resisting a move toward more for-profit hospitals because of a general sense that not-for-profit hospitals offer a survival advantage for patients compared with for-profit hospitals, but without knowing about the particular studies or their strengths and limitations). Conversely, symbolic use pertains to a use of research knowledge, but not to inform decision making; here research knowledge is used to justify a position or action that has already been taken for other reasons (sometimes called a “political use of research”) or the fact that research is being done is used to justify inaction on other fronts (called a “tactical use of research”). John N Lavis, Dave Robertson, Jennifer M Woodside, Christopher B McLeod, and Julia Abelson [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690219/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690219/) ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hm7ky9503m4rrf5bq1ehdf42)) ^rw661181936