IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v20y2011i3p211-218.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Jack Spaapen
  • Leonie van Drooge

Abstract

Social impact of research is difficult to measure. Attribution problems arise because of the often long time-lag between research and a particular impact, and because impacts are the consequences of multiple causes. Furthermore, there is a lack of robust measuring instruments. We aim to overcome these problems through a different approach to evaluation where learning is the prime concern instead of judging. We focus on what goes on between researchers and other actors, and so narrow the gap between research and impact, or at least make it transparent. And by making the process visible, we are able to suggest indicator categories that arguably lead to more robust measuring instruments. We propose three categories of what we refer to as ‘productive interactions’: direct or personal interactions; indirect interactions through texts or artefacts; and financial interactions through money or ‘in kind’ contributions. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Jack Spaapen & Leonie van Drooge, 2011. "Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 211-218, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:20:y:2011:i:3:p:211-218
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820211X12941371876742
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christina Boswell & Katherine Smith, 2017. "Rethinking policy ‘impact’: four models of research-policy relations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Reed, M.S. & Ferré, M. & Martin-Ortega, J. & Blanche, R. & Lawford-Rolfe, R. & Dallimer, M. & Holden, J., 2021. "Evaluating impact from research: A methodological framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    3. Matt, M. & Gaunand, A. & Joly, P-B. & Colinet, L., 2017. "Opening the black box of impact – Ideal-type impact pathways in a public agricultural research organization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 207-218.
    4. Alis Oancea & Teresa Florez Petour & Jeanette Atkinson, 2017. "Qualitative network analysis tools for the configurative articulation of cultural value and impact from research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 302-315.
    5. Julia Olmos‐Peñuela & Paul Benneworth & Elena Castro‐Martínez, 2015. "Exploring the factors related with scientists’ willingness to incorporating external knowledge," CHEPS Working Papers 201504, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    6. Bührer, Susanne & Feidenheimer, Alexander & Walz, Rainer & Lindner, Ralf & Beckert, Bernd & Wallwaey, Elisa, 2022. "Concepts and methods to measure societal impacts: An overview," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 74, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    7. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    8. Jakob Edler & Jan Fagerberg, 2017. "Innovation policy: what, why, and how," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 2-23.
    9. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    10. Reetta Muhonen & Paul Benneworth & Julia Olmos-Peñuela, 2018. "From productive interactions to impact pathways," CHEPS Working Papers 201802, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    11. Matteo Pedrini & Valentina Langella & Mario Alberto Battaglia & Paola Zaratin, 2018. "Assessing the health research’s social impact: a systematic review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1227-1250, March.
    12. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Laura González-Salmerón & Pedro Marques, 2021. "Fiction lagging behind or non-fiction defending the indefensible? University–industry (et al.) interaction in science fiction," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1889-1916, December.
    13. Paul Benneworth, 2015. "Between certainty and comprehensiveness in evaluating the societal impact of humanities research," CHEPS Working Papers 201502, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    14. Chams, Nour & Guesmi, Bouali & Gil, Jose M. & Molins, Mireia & Cubel, Rosa, 2021. "Between “Research Producers” and “Research Adopters”: The Role of Knowledge and Innovation Transfer on Sustainability Impact," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315264, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Brauer, Rene & Dymitrow, Mirek & Tribe, John, 2019. "The impact of tourism research," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 64-78.
    16. McNie, Elizabeth C. & Parris, Adam & Sarewitz, Daniel, 2016. "Improving the public value of science: A typology to inform discussion, design and implementation of research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 884-895.
    17. Gaunand, A. & Hocdé, A. & Lemarié, S. & Matt, M. & Turckheim, E.de, 2015. "How does public agricultural research impact society? A characterization of various patterns," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 849-861.
    18. Jordi Molas-Gallart & Pablo D’Este & Oscar Llopis & Ismael Rafols, 2016. "Towards an alternative framework for the evaluation of translational research initiatives," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 235-243.
    19. Rossi, Federica & Rosli, Ainurul & Yip, Nick, 2017. "Academic engagement as knowledge co-production and implications for impact: Evidence from Knowledge Transfer Partnerships," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1-9.
    20. Laurens K. Hessels & Stefan P.L. De Jong & Stijn Brouwer, 2018. "Collaboration between Heterogeneous Practitioners in Sustainability Research: A Comparative Analysis of Three Transdisciplinary Programmes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:20:y:2011:i:3:p:211-218. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.