IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v28y2019i2p202-205..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comments to Belcher et al. 2018’s critique of Hansson and Polk 2018

Author

Listed:
  • Stina Hansson
  • Merritt Polk

Abstract

Assessing the value of transdisciplinary research is a complex and multifaceted enterprise allowing room for many perspectives. The Belcher et al. (2018) critique of our paper (Hansson and Polk 2018) seems to be based on different perspectives and different readings of prior work. These differences for us explains the majority of the criticisms raised against our paper. After having critically reread all of the involved texts we conclude that the analysis, overall conclusions and content of our paper are solid. However, the response to our paper raised some very nuanced and important points regarding how we understand and reference each other's work. In this comment we will respond to and explain the most important issues raised in relation to the aim of our paper, the validity of our empirical results and our interpretation of the reference texts. We find that from different perspectives and with different aims and methods our work comes to very similar conclusions regarding the RCL framework and its usefulness in promoting the societal impact of research.

Suggested Citation

  • Stina Hansson & Merritt Polk, 2019. "Comments to Belcher et al. 2018’s critique of Hansson and Polk 2018," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 202-205.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:28:y:2019:i:2:p:202-205.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvz006
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Brian M. Belcher & Katherine E. Rasmussen & Matthew R. Kemshaw & Deborah A. Zornes, 2016. "Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 1-17.
    5. Cash, David & Clark, William & Alcock, Frank & Dickson, Nancy & Eckley, Noelle & Jager, Jill, 2002. "Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making," Working Paper Series rwp02-046, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    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. Dotti, Nicola Francesco & Walczyk, Julia, 2022. "What is the societal impact of university research? A policy-oriented review to map approaches, identify monitoring methods and success factors," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).

    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. 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.
    2. Brian M Belcher & Luisa F Ramirez & Rachel Davel & Rachel Claus, 2019. "A response to Hansson and Polk (2018) “Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impac," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 196-201.
    3. Stephanie Jahn & Jens Newig & Daniel J. Lang & Judith Kahle & Matthias Bergmann, 2022. "Demarcating transdisciplinary research in sustainability science—Five clusters of research modes based on evidence from 59 research projects," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 343-357, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Cian O’Donovan & Aleksandra (Ola) Michalec & Joshua R Moon, 2022. "Capabilities for transdisciplinary research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 145-158.
    6. Ramirez, Luisa F. & Belcher, Brian M., 2020. "Crossing the science-policy interface: Lessons from a research project on Brazil nut management in Peru," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    7. Heikki Tuomenvirta & Hilppa Gregow & Atte Harjanne & Sanna Luhtala & Antti Mäkelä & Karoliina Pilli-Sihvola & Sirkku Juhola & Mikael Hildén & Pirjo Peltonen-Sainio & Ilkka T. Miettinen & Mikko Halonen, 2019. "Identifying Policy Actions Supporting Weather-Related Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-15, July.
    8. 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).
    9. Rick Hölsgens & Eva Wascher & Carolin Bauer & Judith Boll & Stephanie Bund & Saskia Dankwart-Kammoun & Irina Heese & Katharina Schrot & Jürgen Schultze & Robert Tenambergen, 2023. "Transdisciplinary Research along the Logic of Empowerment : Perspectives from Four Urban and Regional Transformation Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-20, March.
    10. Bührer, Susanne & Feidenheimer, Alexander & Walz, Rainer & Lindner, Ralf & Beckert, Bernd & Wallwaey, Elisa, 2022. "Concepts and methods to measure societal impacts: An overview," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 74, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    11. Dotti, Nicola Francesco & Walczyk, Julia, 2022. "What is the societal impact of university research? A policy-oriented review to map approaches, identify monitoring methods and success factors," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    12. Robert K D McLean & Kunal Sen, 2019. "Making a difference in the real world? A meta-analysis of the quality of use-oriented research using the Research Quality Plus approach," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 123-135.
    13. Jonathan P. Doh & Lorraine Eden & Anne S. Tsui & Srilata Zaheer, 2023. "Developing international business scholarship for global societal impact," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 54(5), pages 757-767, July.
    14. Kristjanson, Patti & Reid, Robin & Dickson, Nancy & Clark, William C. & Vishnubhotla, Prasad & Romney, Dannie & Bezkorowajnyj, Peter & Said, Mohammed & Kaelo, Dickson & Makui, Ogeli & Nkedianye, David, 2008. "Linking International Agricultural Research Knowledge with Action for Sustainable Poverty Alleviation: What Works?," Working Paper Series rwp08-045, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    15. Martin Ricker, 2017. "Letter to the Editor: About the quality and impact of scientific articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1851-1855, June.
    16. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Yang Zhang, 2023. "The effect of social media knowledge cascade: an analysis of scientific papers diffusion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5169-5195, September.
    17. Nathalie Taverdet-Popiolek, 2022. "Economic Footprint of a Large French Research and Technology Organisation in Europe: Deciphering a Simplified Model and Appraising the Results," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(1), pages 44-69, March.
    18. Phemelo Tamasiga & Helen Onyeaka & Adenike Akinsemolu & Malebogo Bakwena, 2023. "The Inter-Relationship between Climate Change, Inequality, Poverty and Food Security in Africa: A Bibliometric Review and Content Analysis Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-35, March.
    19. Beatriz Barros & Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Raul Fidalgo-Merino & Francisco Triguero, 2018. "Scientific knowledge percolation process and social impact: A case study on the biotechnology and microbiology perceptions on Twitter," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 804-814.
    20. van der Waal, Mark B. & Feddema, Jelle J. & van de Burgwal, Linda H.M., 2023. "Mapping the broad societal impact of patents," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).

    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:28:y:2019:i:2:p:202-205.. 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/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.