IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v20y2011i3p201-209.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing policy and practice impacts of social science research: the application of the Payback Framework to assess the Future of Work programme

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa Klautzer
  • Stephen Hanney
  • Edward Nason
  • Jennifer Rubin
  • Jonathan Grant
  • Steven Wooding

Abstract

The UK Economic and Social Research Council funded exploratory evaluation studies to assess the wider impacts on society of various examples of its research. The Payback Framework is a conceptual approach previously used to evaluate impacts from health research. We tested its applicability to social sciences by using an adapted version to assess the impacts of the Future of Work (FoW) programme. We undertook key informant interviews, a programme-wide survey, user interviews and four case studies of selected projects. The FoW programme had significant impacts on knowledge, research and career development. While some principal investigators (PIs) could identify specific impacts of their research, PIs generally thought they had influenced policy in an incremental way and informed the policy debate. The study suggests progress can be made in applying an adapted version of the framework to the social sciences. However, some impacts may be inaccessible to evaluation, and some evaluations may occur too early or too late to capture the impact of research on a constantly changing policy environment. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa Klautzer & Stephen Hanney & Edward Nason & Jennifer Rubin & Jonathan Grant & Steven Wooding, 2011. "Assessing policy and practice impacts of social science research: the application of the Payback Framework to assess the Future of Work programme," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 201-209, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:20:y:2011:i:3:p:201-209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820211X13118583635675
    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. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    2. Juha-Pekka Lauronen, 2022. "Tension in Interpretations of the Social Impact of the Social Sciences: Walking a Tightrope Between Divergent Conceptualizations of Research Utilization," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, April.
    3. Zhang, Lin & Sivertsen, Gunnar & Du, Huiying & HUANG, Ying & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2021. "Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research," SocArXiv 9n347, Center for Open Science.
    4. 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.
    5. Isager, Peder Mortvedt & van 't Veer, Anna Elisabeth & Lakens, Daniel, 2021. "Replication value as a function of citation impact and sample size," MetaArXiv knjea, Center for Open Science.
    6. 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.
    7. Lin Zhang & Gunnar Sivertsen & Huiying Du & Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2021. "Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8861-8886, November.
    8. Emma Terämä & Melanie Smallman & Simon J Lock & Charlotte Johnson & Martin Zaltz Austwick, 2016. "Beyond Academia – Interrogating Research Impact in the Research Excellence Framework," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, December.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    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:rseval:v:20:y:2011:i:3:p:201-209. 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.