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
  • [51] Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities-A literature review
    Pedersen, David Budtz
    Gronvad, Jonas Folsgaard
    Hvidtfeldt, Rolf
    [J]. RESEARCH EVALUATION, 2020, 29 (01) : 4 - 21
  • [52] Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review
    Penfield, Teresa
    Baker, Matthew J.
    Scoble, Rosa
    Wykes, Michael C.
    [J]. RESEARCH EVALUATION, 2014, 23 (01) : 21 - 32
  • [53] Power M., 2000, International Journal of Auditing, V4, P111, DOI DOI 10.1111/1099-1123.00306
  • [54] Proctor R., 1991, Value-free science? Purity and power in modern knowledge
  • [55] A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research
    Reale, Emanuela
    Avramov, Dragana
    Canhial, Kubra
    Donovan, Claire
    Flecha, Ramon
    Holm, Poul
    Larkin, Charles
    Lepori, Benedetto
    Mosoni-Fried, Judith
    Oliver, Esther
    Primeri, Emilia
    Puigvert, Lidia
    Scharnhorst, Andrea
    Schubert, Andras
    Soler, Marta
    Soos, Sandor
    Sorde, Teresa
    Travis, Charles
    Van Horik, Rene
    [J]. RESEARCH EVALUATION, 2018, 27 (04) : 298 - 308
  • [56] Societal impact evaluation: Exploring evaluator perceptions of the characterization of impact under the REF2014
    Samuel, Gabrielle N.
    Derrick, Gemma E.
    [J]. RESEARCH EVALUATION, 2015, 24 (03) : 229 - 241
  • [57] Sand F., 1993, POLITIK TECHNOLOGIEE, P237
  • [58] The Violence of Impact: Unpacking Relations Between Gender, Media and Politics
    Savigny, Heather
    [J]. POLITICAL STUDIES REVIEW, 2020, 18 (02) : 277 - 293
  • [59] Types of evaluation and types of evaluator
    Scriven, M
    [J]. EVALUATION PRACTICE, 1996, 17 (02): : 151 - 161
  • [60] The triple helix and new production of knowledge: Prepackaged thinking on science and technology
    Shinn, T
    [J]. SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, 2002, 32 (04) : 599 - 614