IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v27y2018i4p298-308..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research

Author

Listed:
  • Emanuela Reale
  • Dragana Avramov
  • Kubra Canhial
  • Claire Donovan
  • Ramon Flecha
  • Poul Holm
  • Charles Larkin
  • Benedetto Lepori
  • Judith Mosoni-Fried
  • Esther Oliver
  • Emilia Primeri
  • Lidia Puigvert
  • Andrea Scharnhorst
  • Andràs Schubert
  • Marta Soler
  • Sàndor Soòs
  • Teresa Sordé
  • Charles Travis
  • René Van Horik

Abstract

Recently, the need to contribute to the evaluation of the scientific, social, and political impact of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) research has become a demand of policy makers and society. The international scientific community has made significant advances that have transformed the impact of evaluation landscape. This article reviews the existing scientific knowledge on evaluation tools and techniques that are applied to assess the scientific impact of SSH research; the changing structure of social and political impacts of SSH research is investigated based on an overarching research question: to what extent do scholars attempt to apply methods, instruments, and approaches that take into account the distinctive features of SSH? The review also includes examples of European Union (EU) projects that demonstrate these impacts. This article culminates in a discussion of the development of the assessment of different impacts and identifies limitations, and areas and topics to explore in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Emanuela Reale & Dragana Avramov & Kubra Canhial & Claire Donovan & Ramon Flecha & Poul Holm & Charles Larkin & Benedetto Lepori & Judith Mosoni-Fried & Esther Oliver & Emilia Primeri & Lidia Puigvert, 2018. "A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(4), pages 298-308.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:27:y:2018:i:4:p:298-308.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvx025
    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:27:y:2018:i:4:p:298-308.. 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.