The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods

被引:60
作者
Smit, Jorrit P. [1 ,2 ]
Hessels, Laurens K. [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Erasmus Univ, Dept Publ Adm, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, NL-3062 PA Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Leiden Univ, Inst Philosophy, Nonnensteeg 1-3, NL-2311 BE Leiden, Netherlands
[3] Rathenau Inst, Anna Van Saksenlaan 51, NL-2593 HW The Hague, Netherlands
[4] Leiden Univ, CWTS, Kolffpad 1, NL-2333 BN Leiden, Netherlands
关键词
research evaluation; impact assessment; societal impact; literature; PAYBACK FRAMEWORK; ASSESSING POLICY; LINEAR-MODEL; KNOWLEDGE; SCIENCE; THINKING; FIELDS;
D O I
10.1093/reseval/rvab002
中图分类号
G25 [图书馆学、图书馆事业]; G35 [情报学、情报工作];
学科分类号
1205 ; 120501 ;
摘要
Over the past two decades, several methods have been developed to evaluate the societal impact of research. Compared to the practical development of the field, the conceptual development is relatively weak. This review article contributes to the latter by elucidating the theoretical aspects of the dominant methods for evaluating societal impact of research, in particular, their presuppositions about the relationship between scientific and societal value of research. We analyse 10 approaches to the assessment of the societal impact of research from a constructivist perspective. The methods represent different understandings of knowledge exchange, which can be understood in terms of linear, cyclical, and co-production models. In addition, the evaluation methods use a variety of concepts for the societal value of research, which suggest different relationships with scientific value. While some methods rely on a clear and explicit distinction between the two types of value, other methods, in particular Evaluative Inquiry, ASIRPA, Contribution Mapping, Public Value Mapping, and SIAMPI, consider the mechanisms for producing societal value integral to the research process. We conclude that evaluation methods must balance between demarcating societal value as a separate performance indicator for practical purposes and doing justice to the (constructivist) science studies' findings about the integration of scientific and societal value of research. Our analytic comparison of assessment methods can assist research evaluators in the conscious and responsible selection of an approach that fits with the object under evaluation. As evaluation actively shapes knowledge production, it is important not to use oversimplified concepts of societal value.
引用
收藏
页码:323 / 335
页数:13
相关论文
共 70 条
  • [11] Dahler-Larsen P., 2011, The evaluation society, DOI [DOI 10.1515/9780804778121, 10.1515/9780804778121]
  • [12] Understanding societal impact through productive interactions: ICT research as a case
    de Jong, Stefan
    Barker, Katharine
    Cox, Deborah
    Sveinsdottir, Thordis
    Van den Besselaar, Peter
    [J]. RESEARCH EVALUATION, 2014, 23 (02) : 89 - 102
  • [13] Scientists' response to societal impact policies: A policy paradox
    de Jong, Stefan P. L.
    Smit, Jorrit
    van Drooge, Leonie
    [J]. SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY, 2016, 43 (01) : 102 - 114
  • [14] de Oliveira Claire, 2013, CMAJ Open, V1, pE83, DOI 10.9778/cmajo.20130003
  • [15] De Rijcke S., 2019, FTEVAL J RES TECHNOL, V48, P176, DOI DOI 10.22163/FTEVAL.2019.386
  • [16] Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use-a literature review
    de Rijcke, Sarah
    Wouters, Paul F.
    Rushforth, Alex D.
    Franssen, Thomas P.
    Hammarfelt, Bjorn
    [J]. RESEARCH EVALUATION, 2016, 25 (02) : 161 - 169
  • [17] De Silva PUK, 2017, FASCINAT LIFE SCI, P117, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50627-2_8
  • [18] Derrick G.E., 2018, 23 INT C SCI TECHN I, P1199
  • [19] For ethical 'impactology'
    Donovan, Claire
    [J]. JOURNAL OF RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION, 2019, 6 (01) : 78 - 83
  • [20] The 'Payback Framework' explained
    Donovan, Claire
    Hanney, Stephen
    [J]. RESEARCH EVALUATION, 2011, 20 (03) : 181 - 183