IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v36y2009i5p387-401.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society

Author

Listed:
  • Laurens K Hessels
  • Harro van Lente
  • Ruud Smits

Abstract

This paper reflects on the relevance of academic science. Relevance plays a central role in what we define as the ‘contract’ between (academic) science and society. The manifestations of relevance in the daily practice of academic research can be studied using the credibility cycle. Together, the science—society contract and the credibility cycle enable a systematic analysis of relevance in scientific disciplines. This is illustrated with a case study of academic chemistry in The Netherlands. We conclude that science's search for relevance is not new, but that its meaning changes together with changing ideas about the potential benefits of scientific research. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Laurens K Hessels & Harro van Lente & Ruud Smits, 2009. "In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(5), pages 387-401, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:36:y:2009:i:5:p:387-401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234209X442034
    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. Brunet, Lucas & Tuomisaari, Johanna & Lavorel, Sandra & Crouzat, Emilie & Bierry, Adeline & Peltola, Taru & Arpin, Isabelle, 2018. "Actionable knowledge for land use planning: Making ecosystem services operational," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-34.
    2. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Frank J. Rijnsoever & Laurens K. Hessels, 2021. "How academic researchers select collaborative research projects: a choice experiment," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1917-1948, December.
    4. Anna Jonsson & Maria Grafström & Mikael Klintman, 2022. "Unboxing knowledge in collaboration between academia and society: A story about conceptions and epistemic uncertainty [De-essentializing the Knowledge Intensive Firm: Reflections on Skeptical Resea," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 583-597.
    5. Leonie Drooge & Jack Spaapen, 2022. "Evaluation and monitoring of transdisciplinary collaborations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 747-761, June.
    6. Flipse, Steven M. & van der Sanden, Maarten C.A. & Osseweijer, Patricia, 2014. "Improving industrial R&D practices with social and ethical aspects: Aligning key performance indicators with social and ethical aspects in food technology R&D," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 185-197.
    7. Marques, Marcelo, 2021. "How do policy instruments generate new ones? Analysing policy instruments feedback and interaction in educational research in England, 1986-2014," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    8. Faccilongo Nicola & Piermichele LaSala & Rimantas Stasys & Leonardo DiGioia, 2018. "Models of farms management and organization in social agriculture," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(1), pages 107-118.
    9. Laurens Hessels & John Grin & Smits, 2010. "Stakeholder interactions in Dutch animal sciences," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 10-02, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised May 2010.
    10. Anita Wreford & Suzanne Peace & Mark Reed & Justyna Bandola-Gill & Ragne Low & Andrew Cross, 2019. "Evidence-informed climate policy: mobilising strategic research and pooling expertise for rapid evidence generation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 171-190, September.
    11. Giffoni, Francesco & Florio, Massimo, 2023. "Public support of science: A contingent valuation study of citizens' attitudes about CERN with and without information about implicit taxes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    12. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "Government science in forestry: Characteristics and policy utilization," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 37-45, January.
    13. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    14. Flink, Tim & Kaldewey, David, 2018. "The new production of legitimacy: STI policy discourses beyond the contract metaphor," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 14-22.
    15. Bruce Currie-Alder & Rigas Arvanitis & Sari Hanafi, 2018. "Research in Arabic-speaking countries: Funding competitions, international collaboration, and career incentives," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 74-82.
    16. Michael Morrison & Stevienna de Saille, 2019. "CRISPR in context: towards a socially responsible debate on embryo editing," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, December.

    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:36:y:2009:i:5:p:387-401. 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.