IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v36y2009i4p255-270.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the impact of research on policy: A literature review

Author

Listed:
  • Annette Boaz
  • Siobhan Fitzpatrick
  • Ben Shaw

Abstract

Understanding the impact of research on policy is a vital, and often overlooked, element of policy-making. A systematic literature review was conducted to examine methods for evaluating the impact of research on policy outcomes. The review focused in particular on strategic policy levels (rather than implementation) and waste, environment and pollution policy. The review draws on an international literature, although it is limited to English language publications. The findings identify the different methods used, the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches and the methods that are most effective (particularly in terms of cost). The field of research impact evaluation is currently experiencing rapid development, and there is scope to develop and apply new conceptual frameworks and innovative methods for evaluation, and to conduct and publish more research impact evaluations. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Annette Boaz & Siobhan Fitzpatrick & Ben Shaw, 2009. "Assessing the impact of research on policy: A literature review," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(4), pages 255-270, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:36:y:2009:i:4:p:255-270
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234209X436545
    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. Kroll, Henning & Hansmeier, Hendrik & Hufnagl, Miriam, 2022. "Productive interactions in basic research an enquiry into impact pathways at the DESY synchrotron," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    2. Barbara L Riley & Alison Kernoghan & Lisa Stockton & Steve Montague & Jennifer Yessis & Cameron D Willis, 2018. "Using contribution analysis to evaluate the impacts of research on policy: Getting to ‘good enough’," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 16-27.
    3. Molly Morgan Jones & Catriona Manville & Joanna Chataway, 2022. "Learning from the UK’s research impact assessment exercise: a case study of a retrospective impact assessment exercise and questions for the future," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 722-746, June.
    4. Borst, Robert A.J. & Kok, Maarten Olivier & O’Shea, Alison J. & Pokhrel, Subhash & Jones, Teresa H. & Boaz, Annette, 2019. "Envisioning and shaping translation of knowledge into action: A comparative case-study of stakeholder engagement in the development of a European tobacco control tool," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(10), pages 917-923.
    5. Heyeres, Marion & Tsey, Komla & Yang, Yinghong & Yan, Li & Jiang, Hua, 2019. "The characteristics and reporting quality of research impact case studies: A systematic review," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 10-23.
    6. A. Gaunand & L. Colinet & P.-B. Joly & M. Matt, 2022. "Counting what really counts? Assessing the political impact of science," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 699-721, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Isabel Vogel & Chris Barnett, 2023. "Laying the Foundations for Impact: Lessons from the GCRF Evaluation," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 281-297, April.

    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:scippl:v:36:y:2009:i:4:p:255-270. 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/spp .

    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.