IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v32y2023i2p395-411..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research impact as understood by two funders of agricultural research in South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Harrie Esterhuyse
  • Nelius Boshoff

Abstract

Impact literacy is the understanding of research impact in terms of a junction of three elements: ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘who’. ‘What’ refers to impact endpoints, that is, the medium- to long-term impacts or even short-term effects that occur during or immediately after research. ‘How’ refers to the understanding of how impact is created, in other words the interactions required. ‘Who’ focuses on which stakeholders need to be integrated into a network of interactions to contribute to impact. This study focused on the ‘what’ of impact, specifically on the understanding of research impact by two funders of agricultural research in South Africa. Members of specialist committees at the two funding organizations were asked, through a survey, to rate several structured items mapped on a research impact classification scheme. They could also provide their own ideas on what impact is. Committee members from both organizations viewed research impact primarily as an effect on the individuals and groups in the industry that they represent. They generally did not consider research impact as an effect on researchers, nor did they place specific emphasis on the societal effects of research. The ‘what’ of research impact was found to imply a series of effects, where the different effects build on each other. Linking these effects to the ‘how’ and ‘who’ of impact will require the construction of impact pathways. Funders should take responsibility for pushing research results to a distal level by planning ‘who’ will do the push, ‘how’ it will be done and managed, and to ‘what’ final aim.

Suggested Citation

  • Harrie Esterhuyse & Nelius Boshoff, 2023. "Research impact as understood by two funders of agricultural research in South Africa," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 395-411.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2023:i:2:p:395-411.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvac042
    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.

    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:32:y:2023:i:2:p:395-411.. 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.