IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v43y2016i1p102-114..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientists’ response to societal impact policies: A policy paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Stefan P. L. de Jong
  • Jorrit Smit
  • Leonie van Drooge

Abstract

Many countries have amended legislation and introduced policies to stimulate universities to transfer their knowledge to society. The effects of these policies on scientists are relatively unexplored. We employ principal–agent theory to increase our understanding of the relationship between impact policies and scientific practice. Our methodology includes the analysis of policy documents and of data gathered in focus groups. We conclude that there is a gap between policy on the one hand and how scientists perceive it on the other. Policy documents put forward a broad notion of impact, but scientists perceive them as focusing too narrowly on commercial impacts. Scientists are further puzzled by how societal impact is evaluated and organised, and their perceptions frame their behaviour. Our policy recommendations focus on improving the interaction between intermediaries, such as universities and research councils, and scientists so as to include the latter’s perspective in policy-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefan P. L. de Jong & Jorrit Smit & Leonie van Drooge, 2016. "Scientists’ response to societal impact policies: A policy paradox," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 102-114.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:43:y:2016:i:1:p:102-114.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scv023
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laura Meagher & Catherine Lyall & Sandra Nutley, 2008. "Flows of knowledge, expertise and influence: a method for assessing policy and practice impacts from social science research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 163-173, September.
    2. Tjerk Wardenaar & Stefan P. L. de Jong & Laurens K. Hessels, 2014. "Varieties of research coordination: A comparative analysis of two strategic research consortia," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(6), pages 780-792.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. E Sormani & K Uude, 2022. "Academics’ prosocial motivation for engagement with society: The case of German academics in health science [Why Do Academics Engage Locally? Insights from the University of Stavanger]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(6), pages 962-971.
    2. Stefan P L de Jong & Corina Balaban & Maria Nedeva, 2022. "From ‘productive interactions’ to ‘enabling conditions’: The role of organizations in generating societal impact of academic research [One Size Does Not Fit All! New Perspectives on the University ," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 643-645.
    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. 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.
    5. Reetta Muhonen & Paul Benneworth & Julia Olmos-Peñuela, 2020. "From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 34-47.
    6. Helka Kalliomäki & Sampo Ruoppila & Jenni Airaksinen, 2021. "It takes two to tango: Examining productive interactions in urban research collaboration [Generating Research Questions through Problematization]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 529-539.
    7. Leonie Drooge & Jack Spaapen, 2022. "Evaluation and monitoring of transdisciplinary collaborations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 747-761, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Jovana Janinovic & Sanja Pekovic & Dijana Vuckovic & Stevo Popovic & Rajka Djokovic & Mirjana Pejiæ Bach, 2020. "Innovative strategies for creating and assessing research quality and societal impact in social sciences and humanities," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 18(4), pages 449-458.
    10. James A. Cunningham & Paul O’Reilly & Brendan Dolan & Conor O’Kane & Vincent Mangematin, 2016. "Publicly funded principal investigators allocation of time for public sector entrepreneurship activities," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 43(4), pages 383-408, December.
    11. Lai Ma & Rachael Agnew, 2022. "Deconstructing impact: A framework for impact evaluation in grant applications [Evidencing Impact from Art Research: Analysis of Impact Case Studies from the REF 2014]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 289-301.
    12. Stefan P L de Jong & Corina Balaban, 2022. "How universities influence societal impact practices: Academics’ sense-making of organizational impact strategies [Between Relevance and Excellence? Research Impact Agenda and the Production of Pol," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 609-620.
    13. Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Kalpana Shankar, 2021. "Does the inclusion of non-academic reviewers make any difference for grant impact panels? [Understanding the Long Term Impact of the Framework Programme, European Policy Evaluation Consortium (EPEC," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(6), pages 763-775.
    14. Linda H. M. van de Burgwal & Ana Dias & Eric Claassen, 2019. "Incentives for knowledge valorisation: a European benchmark," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 1-20, February.
    15. James Maccarthy & Suzanne Guerin & Anthony G Wilson & Emma R Dorris, 2019. "Facilitating public and patient involvement in basic and preclinical health research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. 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.
    2. Cole, Stroma & Wardana, Agung & Dharmiasih, Wiwik, 2021. "Making an impact on Bali's water crisis: Research to mobilize NGOs, the tourism industry and policy makers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    3. Rau, Henrike & Goggins, Gary & Fahy, Frances, 2018. "From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 266-276.
    4. Nicola Francesco Dotti & André Spithoven, 2017. "Spatial perspectives on knowledge brokers: Evidence from Brussels," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(10), pages 2203-2222, October.
    5. Dorian Aliu & Ayten Akatay & Armando Aliu & Umut Eroglu, 2017. "Public Policy Influences on Academia in the European Union," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(1), pages 21582440176, February.
    6. Delphine Labbé & Atiya Mahmood & William C. Miller & W. Ben Mortenson, 2020. "Examining the Impact of Knowledge Mobilization Strategies to Inform Urban Stakeholders on Accessibility: A Mixed-Methods study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-16, February.
    7. Hawkins, Richard & Langford, Cooper H. & Saunders, Chad, 2015. "Assessing the practical application of social knowledge: A survey of six leading Canadian Universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 83-95.
    8. Stina Hansson & Merritt Polk, 2018. "Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 132-144.
    9. 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.
    10. Edwards, David M. & Meagher, Laura R., 2020. "A framework to evaluate the impacts of research on policy and practice: A forestry pilot study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    11. Pauline Zardo & Adrian G Barnett & Nicolas Suzor & Tim Cahill, 2018. "Does engagement predict research use? An analysis of The Conversation Annual Survey 2016," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, February.
    12. Brian W. Head, 2014. "Research and its policy relevance," Chapters, in: Robert Stimson (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Spatially Integrated Social Science, chapter 27, pages 603-616, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Gunnar Sivertsen & Ingeborg Meijer, 2020. "Normal versus extraordinary societal impact: how to understand, evaluate, and improve research activities in their relations to society?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 66-70.
    16. 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).
    17. 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).
    18. Aymerich, Marta & Carrion, Carme & Gallo, Pedro & Garcia, Maria & López-Bermejo, Abel & Quesada, Miquel & Ramos, Rafel, 2012. "Measuring the payback of research activities: A feasible ex-post evaluation methodology in epidemiology and public health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 505-510.
    19. Claudia Musekamp & Tobias Gerhartsreiter & Emmanuelle Quillérou & Nicola Favretto & Thomas Falk & Ali Salha & Laura Schmidt & Mark Reed & Sarah Buckmaster, 2015. "ELD Initiative: Practitioner’s Guide," Working Papers hal-01954818, HAL.
    20. Rossi, Federica & Sengupta, Abhijit, 2022. "Implementing strategic changes in universities’ knowledge exchange profiles: The role and nature of managerial interventions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 874-887.

    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:43:y:2016:i:1:p:102-114.. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.