IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ing/wpaper/201410.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Resolving tensions of research utilization: The value of a usability-based approach

Author

Listed:
  • Benneworth,Paul
  • Olmos-Peñuela,Julia

Abstract

This is a position paper addressing the debate about the nature of how research is utilised and measured that questions the prevalent practice of measuring terminal use transactions (TUTs) â i.e. patents, spin-outs or license income â for measuring research impact. In so doing, our starting point is that a science system is a progressive business in which any piece of research builds on a whole set of antecedent research and knowledge. We contend that the extent of research utilisation across this science system is determined by the extent to which antecedent research can feed into research that ultimately feeds into these TUTs. We introduce the concept of âvalorizersâ as research users that valorise knowledge by transforming it into the socio-economic domain, for the purpose of defining the âusabilityâ of antecedent research as the ease with which it may contribute to research that valorizers are able to absorb. We argue that the flow into the pool of âusable knowledgeâ is ultimately dependent on the extent to which newly created scientific knowledge is cognate with valorizer needs and that more consideration need to be given to the processes by which research creates knowledge that is usable through the course of the research cycle.

Suggested Citation

  • Benneworth,Paul & Olmos-Peñuela,Julia, 2014. "Resolving tensions of research utilization: The value of a usability-based approach," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201410, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 22 Oct 2018.
  • Handle: RePEc:ing:wpaper:201410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.ingenio.upv.es/sites/default/files/working-paper/2014-10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lam, Alice, 2011. "What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1354-1368.
    2. Hessels, Laurens K. & van Lente, Harro, 2008. "Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 740-760, May.
    3. Laurens K. Hessels & Harro van Lente, 2008. "Re-thinking knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-03, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    4. Laudel, Grit & Gläser, Jochen, 2014. "Beyond breakthrough research: Epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1204-1216.
    5. Nicola Baldini & Rosa Grimaldi & Maurizio Sobrero, 2007. "To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 333-354, February.
    6. Rosenberg,Nathan, 1994. "Exploring the Black Box," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521459556.
    7. Marc Gruber & Ian C. MacMillan & James D. Thompson, 2008. "Look Before You Leap: Market Opportunity Identification in Emerging Technology Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1652-1665, September.
    8. Lee, Yong S, 2000. "The Sustainability of University-Industry Research Collaboration: An Empirical Assessment," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 111-133, June.
    9. DâEste,Pablo & Llopis,Oscar & Yegros,Alfredo, 2013. "Conducting pro-social research: cognitive diversity, research excellence and awareness about the social impact of research," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201303, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV).
    10. Nedeva, Maria, 2013. "Between the global and the national: Organising European science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 220-230.
    11. Tommy Clausen & Einar Rasmussen, 2013. "Parallel business models and the innovativeness of research-based spin-off ventures," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(6), pages 836-849, December.
    12. Paul Benneworth & Tiago Ratinho, 2014. "Reframing the Role of Knowledge Parks and Science Cities in Knowledge-Based Urban Development," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(5), pages 784-808, October.
    13. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    14. Olmos Peñuela,Julia & Benneworth,Paul & Castro-Martínez,Elena, 2014. "Explaining researchersâ readiness to incorporate external stimuli in their research agendas," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201408, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Olmos Peñuela,Julia & Benneworth,Paul & Castro-Martínez,Elena, 2014. "Explaining researchersâ readiness to incorporate external stimuli in their research agendas," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201408, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV).
    2. 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).
    3. Olmos-Peñuela, Julia & Castro-Martínez, Elena & D’Este, Pablo, 2014. "Knowledge transfer activities in social sciences and humanities: Explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 696-706.
    4. Milana Korotka & Paul Benneworth & Tiago Ratinho, 2017. "The role of proximity on innovation dynamics in knowledge community precincts," CHEPS Working Papers 201701, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    5. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    6. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    7. Niels Stijn & Frank J. Rijnsoever & Martine Veelen, 2018. "Exploring the motives and practices of university–start-up interaction: evidence from Route 128," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 674-713, June.
    8. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Luca Secondi & Enza Setteducati & Alessio Ancaiani, 2014. "Participation and commitment in third-party research funding: evidence from Italian Universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 169-198, April.
    9. Pablo D’Este & Irene Ramos-Vielba & Richard Woolley & Nabil Amara, 2018. "How do researchers generate scientific and societal impacts? Toward an analytical and operational framework," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 752-763.
    10. Loet Leydesdorff & Martin Meyer, 2010. "The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh–Dole effect," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 355-362, May.
    11. Uwe Cantner & Martin Kalthaus & Indira Yarullina, 2022. "Outcomes of Science-Industry Collaboration: Factors and Interdependencies," Jena Economics Research Papers 2022-003, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    12. Amara, Nabil & Olmos-Peñuela, Julia & Fernández-de-Lucio, Ignacio, 2019. "Overcoming the “lost before translation” problem: An exploratory study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 22-36.
    13. Frank J. Rijnsoever & Laurens K. Hessels, 2021. "How academic researchers select collaborative research projects: a choice experiment," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1917-1948, December.
    14. D’Este, Pablo & Robinson-García, Nicolás, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research and the societal visibility of science: The advantages of spanning multiple and distant scientific fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    15. Iorio, Roberto & Labory, Sandrine & Rentocchini, Francesco, 2017. "The importance of pro-social behaviour for the breadth and depth of knowledge transfer activities: An analysis of Italian academic scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 497-509.
    16. DâEste,Pablo & Llopis,Oscar & Yegros,Alfredo, 2013. "Conducting pro-social research: cognitive diversity, research excellence and awareness about the social impact of research," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201303, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV).
    17. Barry Bozeman & Daniel Fay & Catherine Slade, 2013. "Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 1-67, February.
    18. D'Este, Pablo & Mc Kelvey, Maureen & Yegros-Yegros, Alfredo, 2018. "Innovation from science: the role of network content and legitimacy ties," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201802, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 28 Oct 2019.
    19. Roberto Iorio & Sandrine Labory & Francesco Rentocchini, 2014. "Academics’ Motivations and Depth and Breadth of Knowledge Transfer Activities," Working Papers 1401, c.MET-05 - Centro Interuniversitario di Economia Applicata alle Politiche per L'industria, lo Sviluppo locale e l'Internazionalizzazione.
    20. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 525-550, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ing:wpaper:201410. 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: Ester Planells (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ingenes.html .

    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.