Author
Listed:
- Zuorong Wang
- Hongcun Gong
- Qi Zhang
- Hao Wang
- Sanhong Deng
Abstract
This study analyses 207 REF2021 case studies through the SIAMPI framework, identifying 639 distinct pathways to impact and examining how configurations of stakeholder interactions shape research impact across different research areas. We find that indirect interactions (58% of pathways)—particularly via research evidence and policy documents—constitute the primary mechanism of knowledge translation. The analysis also reveals clear area-level differences: the social sciences predominantly engage indirectly with government stakeholders (weight = 0.36), the physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics emphasize direct industry collaboration (weight = 0.23), while the arts and humanities sustain a more balanced, multi-stakeholder mode of collaboration. Methodologically, the study demonstrates the value of analyzing integrated configurations of stakeholders rather than isolated interactions. Substantively, the findings contribute to research evaluation by: (1) confirming that indirect interactions are central to generating impact; (2) underscoring the need to develop evaluation criteria that are sensitive to research areas rather than assuming uniformity across areas; and (3) showing how interactional configurations can amplify impact by creating synergies among stakeholders. These results suggest that flexible evaluation approaches are needed—ones that recognize universal collaborative mechanisms while also attending to area-specific dynamics—so that policymakers and institutions can better understand how research creates social value.
Suggested Citation
Zuorong Wang & Hongcun Gong & Qi Zhang & Hao Wang & Sanhong Deng, 2025.
"From knowledge to impact: tracing stakeholder engagement pathways within different research areas,"
Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 34, pages 1-044..
Handle:
RePEc:oup:rseval:v:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf044.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
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:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf044.. 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.