IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v29y2020i2p191-202..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Playing the fields: Theorizing research impact and its assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Kate Williams

Abstract

How research is assessed affects what types of knowledge are valued, incentivized, and rewarded. An increasingly important element of contemporary research evaluation is the measurement of the wider impact of research (e.g. benefit to society, culture or economy). Although the measurement of impact has been highly contested, the area is under-theorized and dominated by pragmatic research policy imperatives. Informed by a sociological perspective, this article intervenes in this context by reframing research impact as the attainment and maintenance of capital (i.e. symbolic power or status) in various fields beyond academia. It argues that research impact occurs at the intersection of these fields of power. The article shows that impact involves various combinations of capital from the scholarly field, the field of politics, the field of application, the media field, and the economic field, which provide credibility, authority, utility, visibility, and weight, respectively. In exploring the forms of worth and value that underpin the pursuit of legitimacy in these fields, the article provides a new theoretical framework for understanding research impact and its assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Kate Williams, 2020. "Playing the fields: Theorizing research impact and its assessment," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 191-202.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:29:y:2020:i:2:p:191-202.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvaa001
    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. Marra, Mita, 2022. "Productive interactions in digital training partnerships: Lessons learned for regional development and university societal impact assessment," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    2. Zhenjie Yang & Chuyi Shen & Fat Iam Lam, 2024. "Scientific and Technological Innovation and Cooperation in the Greater Bay Area of China: A Case Study of University Patent Applications and Transformation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-15, January.
    3. Jonna Brenninkmeijer, 2022. "Achieving societal and academic impacts of research: A comparison of networks, values, and strategies [University Research Funding and Publication Performance - an International Comparison]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 728-738.
    4. Brian Belcher & Janet Halliwell, 2021. "Conceptualizing the elements of research impact: towards semantic standards," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-6, December.
    5. Dotti, Nicola Francesco & Walczyk, Julia, 2022. "What is the societal impact of university research? A policy-oriented review to map approaches, identify monitoring methods and success factors," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    6. Jorrit P Smit & Laurens K Hessels, 2021. "The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods [Systems Thinking, Knowledge and Action: Towards Better Models and Methods]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 323-335.
    7. Juha-Pekka Lauronen, 2022. "The epistemic, production, and accountability prospects of social impact: An analysis of strategic research proposals," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 214-225.
    8. Benedikt Fecher & Freia Kuper & Nataliia Sokolovska & Alex Fenton & Stefan Hornbostel & Gert G. Wagner, 2021. "Understanding the Societal Impact of the Social Sciences and Humanities: Remarks on Roles, Challenges, and Expectations," RatSWD Working Papers 276, German Data Forum (RatSWD).

    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:29:y:2020:i:2:p:191-202.. 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.