“Thinking with the Body,” an exhibition at Wellcome Collection in London, 2013, featured a series of interdisciplinary projects organized by Wayne McGregor | Random Dance investigating creativity and dance through the lens of technology and science. McGregor had been collaborating with researchers in computer, cognitive, and social sciences for more than 10 years to find “new ways of understanding choreographic practice and thinking.” The exhibition aimed to “offer visitors the opportunity to deepen their understanding of choreographic practice and to contemplate how mind, brain and body interact in each of us” (http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/2013/WTP053926.htm). Over 6 weeks, 19,000 people visited the exhibition. Public engagement with research has, in many countries, become part of the selection criteria in the assessment of applications for publicly funded research grants (Ferguson, 2014; Hazelkorn, 2015). Knowledge exchange and public engagement, according to this model, are “pathways to impact” (Research Councils UK Review of Pathways to Impact: Summary, n.d.). Impact from research in the humanities, the arts, and social sciences differs from impact from research in medicine, science, engineering, and technology. In both discipline groups, outcomes from research may be conceptual, cumulative, and lead to new ways of understanding phenomena, systems, or processes. However, in the latter group of disciplines, the process of research is assumed to lead to instruments, solutions, and procedures; outcomes or products are tangible. In what ways, if any, might explorations in the field of memory studies demonstrate impact? I will first provide a definition of impact and touch on the challenges impact presents. The centrality of the human and the integrative nature of the field of memory studies are sureties for impact. Rather than quell intellectual curiosity, taking a step along a pathway to impact may fuel new ideas, connections, and collaborations. Impact has been defined as “an effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia” (UK Research Excellence Framework, 2011). Ferguson (2014) traces the origins of the “impact agenda” to a 1993 UK White Paper “Reaching our Potential” (Office of Science and Technology, 1993) which recommended that research contribute directly to economic growth and be planned for end users. The ideas are utilitarian, based on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and privileging research that produces commercializable and patentable innovation and service (Ferguson, 2014). An inherent assumption is that “knowledge gains legitimacy and value through its utility” (Hazelkorn, 2015).