IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v29y2020i1p4-21..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities—A literature review

Author

Listed:
  • David Budtz Pedersen
  • Jonas Følsgaard Grønvad
  • Rolf Hvidtfeldt

Abstract

This article explores the current literature on ‘research impact’ in the social sciences and humanities (SSH). By providing a comprehensive review of available literature, drawing on national and international experiences, we take a systematic look at the impact agenda within SSH. The primary objective of this article is to examine key methodological components used to assess research impact comparing the advantages and disadvantages of each method. The study finds that research impact is a highly complex and contested concept in the SSH literature. Drawing on the strong methodological pluralism emerging in the literature, we conclude that there is considerable room for researchers, universities, and funding agencies to establish impact assessment tools directed towards specific missions while avoiding catch-all indicators and universal metrics.

Suggested Citation

  • David Budtz Pedersen & Jonas Følsgaard Grønvad & Rolf Hvidtfeldt, 2020. "Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities—A literature review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 4-21.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:29:y:2020:i:1:p:4-21.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvz033
    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. Julian Hamann & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner, 2022. "Biographical representation, from narrative to list: The evolution of curricula vitae in the humanities, 1950 to 2010," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 438-451.
    2. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Filippo Chiarello & Gualtiero Fantoni, 2021. "Impact for whom? Mapping the users of public research with lexicon-based text mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1745-1774, February.
    3. Elizabeth N. Farley-Ripple & Kathryn Oliver & Annette Boaz, 2020. "Mapping the community: use of research evidence in policy and practice," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Ole Henning Sørensen & Jakob Bjørner & Andreas Holtermann & Johnny Dyreborg & Jorid Birkelund Sørli & Jesper Kristiansen & Steffen Bohni Nielsen, 2022. "Measuring societal impact of research—Developing and validating an impact instrument for occupational health and safety," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 118-131.
    5. Václav Linkov & Kieran O’Doherty & Eunsoo Choi & Gyuseog Han, 2021. "Linguistic Diversity Index: A Scientometric Measure to Enhance the Relevance of Small and Minority Group Languages," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    6. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. Thornton, Philip & Dijkman, Jeroen & Herrero, Mario & Szilagyi, Lili & Cramer, Laura, 2022. "Viewpoint: Aligning vision and reality in publicly funded agricultural research for development: A case study of CGIAR," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    9. Hannah Durrant & Eleanor MacKillop, 2022. "University policy engagement bodies in the UK and the variable meanings of and approaches to impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(3), pages 372-384.

    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:29:y:2020:i:1:p:4-21.. 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.