IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v30y2021i3p269-289..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

SSH researchers make an impact differently. Looking at public research from the perspective of users
[ISRIA Statement. Ten Point Guidelines for an Effective Process of Research Impact Assessment]

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Bonaccorsi
  • Filippo Chiarello
  • Gualtiero Fantoni

Abstract

With the rise of the impact assessment revolution, governments and public opinion have started to ask researchers to give evidence of their impact outside the traditional audiences, i.e. students and researchers. There is a mismatch between the request to demonstrate the impact and the current methodologies for impact assessment. This mismatch is particularly worrisome for the research in Social Sciences and Humanities. This paper gives a contribution by examining systematically a key element of impact, i.e. the social groups that are directly or indirectly affected by the results of research. We use a Text mining approach applied to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) collection of 6,637 impact case studies in order to identify social groups mentioned by researchers. Differently from previous studies, we employ a lexicon of user groups that includes 76,857 entries, which saturates the semantic field, permits the identification of all users and opens the way to normalization. We then develop three new metrics measuring Frequency, Diversity and Specificity of user expressions. We find that Social Sciences and Humanities exhibit a distinctive structure with respect to frequency and specificity of users.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Bonaccorsi & Filippo Chiarello & Gualtiero Fantoni, 2021. "SSH researchers make an impact differently. Looking at public research from the perspective of users [ISRIA Statement. Ten Point Guidelines for an Effective Process of Research Impact Assessment]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 269-289.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:30:y:2021:i:3:p:269-289.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvab008
    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:30:y:2021:i:3:p:269-289.. 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.