IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v30y2021i4p529-539..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

It takes two to tango: Examining productive interactions in urban research collaboration
[Generating Research Questions through Problematization]

Author

Listed:
  • Helka Kalliomäki
  • Sampo Ruoppila
  • Jenni Airaksinen

Abstract

The science–society relations of social sciences and humanities have been increasingly discussed under the concept of productive interactions, which refers to the mutual learning processes between researchers and stakeholders for the benefit of societal development. While most studies have analysed the societal impact from the research performers’ perspective, in this article, we examine the practitioners’ side. We contribute to the evaluation theory by offering a new perspective to examine the emergence of productive interactions. Based on an empirical analysis of collaborative practices in two Finnish urban research programmes and how the practitioners reflected on them, we argue that practitioners’ competencies are essential in leveraging societal impact. The improvement of these ‘pracademic competencies’ need to be raised as an issue in research policy and evaluation promoting responsible research and innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Helka Kalliomäki & Sampo Ruoppila & Jenni Airaksinen, 2021. "It takes two to tango: Examining productive interactions in urban research collaboration [Generating Research Questions through Problematization]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 529-539.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:30:y:2021:i:4:p:529-539.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvab028
    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. McNie, Elizabeth C. & Parris, Adam & Sarewitz, Daniel, 2016. "Improving the public value of science: A typology to inform discussion, design and implementation of research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 884-895.
    2. Jordi Molas-Gallart & Puay Tang, 2011. "Tracing ‘productive interactions’ to identify social impacts: an example from the social sciences," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 219-226, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Rau, Henrike & Goggins, Gary & Fahy, Frances, 2018. "From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 266-276.
    5. Iorio, Roberto & Labory, Sandrine & Rentocchini, Francesco, 2017. "The importance of pro-social behaviour for the breadth and depth of knowledge transfer activities: An analysis of Italian academic scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 497-509.
    6. Helena Leino & Minna Santaoja & Markus Laine, 2018. "Researchers as knowledge brokers: translating knowledge or co-producing legitimacy? An urban infill case from Finland," International Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 119-129, April.
    7. Stefan P. L. de Jong & Jorrit Smit & Leonie van Drooge, 2016. "Scientists’ response to societal impact policies: A policy paradox," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 102-114.
    8. Reetta Muhonen & Paul Benneworth & Julia Olmos-Peñuela, 2020. "From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 34-47.
    9. 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.
    10. Samantha Cruz Rivera & Derek G Kyte & Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi & Thomas J Keeley & Melanie J Calvert, 2017. "Assessing the impact of healthcare research: A systematic review of methodological frameworks," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-24, August.
    11. Laing, Matthew & Wallis, Philip J., 2016. "Scientists versus policy-makers: Building capacity for productive interactions across boundaries in the urban water sector," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 23-30.
    12. Steven Hill, 2016. "Assessing (for) impact: future assessment of the societal impact of research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 2(1), pages 1-7, December.
    13. Dubois, Anna & Gadde, Lars-Erik, 2002. "Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(7), pages 553-560, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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).
    2. Stefan P L de Jong & Corina Balaban, 2022. "How universities influence societal impact practices: Academics’ sense-making of organizational impact strategies [Between Relevance and Excellence? Research Impact Agenda and the Production of Pol," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 609-620.
    3. 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.
    4. Alba Viana Lora & Marta Gemma Nel-lo Andreu, 2020. "Alternative Metrics for Assessing the Social Impact of Tourism Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-12, May.
    5. Juha-Pekka Lauronen, 2022. "The epistemic, production, and accountability prospects of social impact: An analysis of strategic research proposals," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 214-225.
    6. Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Kalpana Shankar, 2021. "Does the inclusion of non-academic reviewers make any difference for grant impact panels? [Understanding the Long Term Impact of the Framework Programme, European Policy Evaluation Consortium (EPEC," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(6), pages 763-775.
    7. E Sormani & K Uude, 2022. "Academics’ prosocial motivation for engagement with society: The case of German academics in health science [Why Do Academics Engage Locally? Insights from the University of Stavanger]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(6), pages 962-971.
    8. Chams, Nour & Guesmi, Bouali & Gil, Jose M. & Molins, Mireia & Cubel, Rosa, 2021. "Between “Research Producers” and “Research Adopters”: The Role of Knowledge and Innovation Transfer on Sustainability Impact," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315264, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Kroll, Henning & Hansmeier, Hendrik & Hufnagl, Miriam, 2022. "Productive interactions in basic research an enquiry into impact pathways at the DESY synchrotron," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    10. Rousseau, Sandra & Catalano, Giuseppe & Daraio, Cinzia, 2021. "Can we estimate a monetary value of scientific publications?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    11. 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.
    12. Stefan P L de Jong & Corina Balaban & Maria Nedeva, 2022. "From ‘productive interactions’ to ‘enabling conditions’: The role of organizations in generating societal impact of academic research [One Size Does Not Fit All! New Perspectives on the University ," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 643-645.
    13. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    14. Pablo D’Este & Irene Ramos-Vielba & Richard Woolley & Nabil Amara, 2018. "How do researchers generate scientific and societal impacts? Toward an analytical and operational framework," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 752-763.
    15. 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.
    16. Karaulova, Maria & Edler, Jakob, 2023. "Bringing research into policy: Understanding context-specific requirements for productive knowledge brokering in legislatures," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 77, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    17. Rosa Kuipers-Dirven & Matthijs Janssen & Jarno Hoekman, 2023. "Assessing university policies for enhancing societal impact of academic research: A multicriteria mapping approach," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 371-383.
    18. Ohid Yaqub & Dmitry Malkov & Josh Siepel, 2023. "How unpredictable is research impact? Evidence from the UK’s Research Excellence Framework," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 273-285.
    19. Molly Morgan Jones & Catriona Manville & Joanna Chataway, 2022. "Learning from the UK’s research impact assessment exercise: a case study of a retrospective impact assessment exercise and questions for the future," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 722-746, June.
    20. 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).

    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:4:p:529-539.. 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.