IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v27y2000i3p175-182.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Users and unicorns: a discussion of mythical beasts in interactive science

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth Shove
  • Arie Rip

Abstract

The UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) has placed considerable emphasis on the users of the research it supports. Researchers have in turn pointed to the potential uses of the work they do as a means of demonstrating relevance. However, to date, researchers and research funders have succumbed to the temptation of constructing and then believing in users of their own making. The over-reliance on an embodied notion of use and uncritical acceptance of associated pathways of influence is understandable but unnecessary. There are other ways of conceptualising and identifying use, but these require researchers and funders to develop and work with more convincing models of knowledge diffusion and relevance. In short, the challenge is to understand better the process of use even if that means abandoning the comforting fairy-tale of the research user. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth Shove & Arie Rip, 2000. "Users and unicorns: a discussion of mythical beasts in interactive science," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 175-182, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:27:y:2000:i:3:p:175-182
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154300781781959
    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. Michaela Trippl & Tanja Sinozic & Helen Lawton Smith, 2015. "The Role of Universities in Regional Development: Conceptual Models and Policy Institutions in the UK, Sweden and Austria," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(9), pages 1722-1740, September.
    2. Borst, Robert A.J. & Kok, Maarten Olivier & O’Shea, Alison J. & Pokhrel, Subhash & Jones, Teresa H. & Boaz, Annette, 2019. "Envisioning and shaping translation of knowledge into action: A comparative case-study of stakeholder engagement in the development of a European tobacco control tool," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(10), pages 917-923.
    3. Lowe, Philip & Phillipson, Jeremy & Proctor, Amy & Gkartzios, Menelaos, 2019. "Expertise in rural development: A conceptual and empirical analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 28-37.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:scippl:v:27:y:2000:i:3:p:175-182. 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/spp .

    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.