IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v49y2022i4p621-631..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The other side of the boundary: Productive interactions seen from the policy side
[Rethinking Policy ‘Impact’: Four Models of Research-Policy Relations]

Author

Listed:
  • Silje Maria Tellmann
  • Magnus Gulbrandsen

Abstract

The literatures on productive interactions and related frameworks depict impact processes as collaborative efforts to permeate various boundaries between research and societal stakeholders. However, the impact literature is biased towards looking at these processes from the researcher side. This paper analyses policymakers’ interactions with researchers and the different forms of boundary work that ensue, which contributes to improved understanding of the stakeholder side of interactions. Our point of the departure is the interactions related to Research and development (R&D) units and their networks in the central administration in Norway. Using in-depth interviews with twenty-two civil servants in the field of welfare policy, we show how the combination of competitive and collaborative modes of boundary work makes interactions productive. Because research is a strategic asset in the policy domain, control over knowledge production and autonomy to decide when to follow the evidence (or not) is a central feature of knowledge work in policy organisations.

Suggested Citation

  • Silje Maria Tellmann & Magnus Gulbrandsen, 2022. "The other side of the boundary: Productive interactions seen from the policy side [Rethinking Policy ‘Impact’: Four Models of Research-Policy Relations]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 621-631.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:49:y:2022:i:4:p:621-631.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac013
    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. Joly, P.B. & Gaunand, A. & Colinet, L. & Larédo, P. & Lemarié, S. & Matt, M., 2015. "ASIRPA: a comprehensive theory-based approach to assessing the societal impacts of a research organization," Working Papers 2015-04, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    2. Stefan de Jong & Katharine Barker & Deborah Cox & Thordis Sveinsdottir & Peter Van den Besselaar, 2014. "Understanding societal impact through productive interactions: ICT research as a case," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 89-102.
    3. Ronlyn Duncan & Melissa Robson-Williams & Sarah Edwards, 2020. "A close examination of the role and needed expertise of brokers in bridging and building science policy boundaries in environmental decision making," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, December.
    4. Matt, M. & Gaunand, A. & Joly, P-B. & Colinet, L., 2017. "Opening the black box of impact – Ideal-type impact pathways in a public agricultural research organization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 207-218.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Genowefa Blundo-Canto & Bernard Triomphe & Guy Faure & Danielle Barret & Aurelle de Romemont & Etienne Hainzelin, 2019. "Building a culture of impact in an international agricultural research organization: Process and reflective learning," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 136-144.
    4. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    5. Reed, M.S. & Ferré, M. & Martin-Ortega, J. & Blanche, R. & Lawford-Rolfe, R. & Dallimer, M. & Holden, J., 2021. "Evaluating impact from research: A methodological framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    6. Matt, M. & Gaunand, A. & Joly, P-B. & Colinet, L., 2017. "Opening the black box of impact – Ideal-type impact pathways in a public agricultural research organization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 207-218.
    7. A. Gaunand & L. Colinet & P.-B. Joly & M. Matt, 2022. "Counting what really counts? Assessing the political impact of science," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 699-721, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Molas-Gallart, Jordi & Woolley, Richard, 2022. "Research impact seen from the user side," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 202201, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV).
    10. 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).
    11. S. Wigboldus & M. A. McEwan & B. van Schagen & I. Okike & T. A. van Mourik & A. Rietveld & T. Amole & F. Asfaw & M. C. Hundayehu & F. Iradukunda & P. Kulakow & S. Namanda & I. Suleman & B. R. Wimba, 2023. "Understanding capacities to scale innovations for sustainable development: a learning journey of scaling partnerships in three parts of Africa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8197-8231, August.
    12. vom Brocke, Kirsten & Kondombo, Clarisse Pulcherie & Guillet, Marion & Kaboré, Roger & Sidibé, Adama & Temple, Ludovic & Trouche, Gilles, 2020. "Impact of participatory sorghum breeding in Burkina Faso," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    13. Pierre Benoit Joly & Laurence Colinet & Ariane Gaunand & Stephane Lemarié & Mireille Matt, 2016. "Agricultural research impact assessment: issues, methods and challenges," Working Papers hal-01431457, HAL.
    14. 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).
    15. Jonathan P. Doh & Lorraine Eden & Anne S. Tsui & Srilata Zaheer, 2023. "Developing international business scholarship for global societal impact," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 54(5), pages 757-767, July.
    16. 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.
    17. Nathalie Taverdet-Popiolek, 2022. "Economic Footprint of a Large French Research and Technology Organisation in Europe: Deciphering a Simplified Model and Appraising the Results," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(1), pages 44-69, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Bianca Vienni-Baptista & Isabel Fletcher & Catherine Lyall & Christian Pohl, 2022. "Embracing heterogeneity: Why plural understandings strengthen interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity [Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(6), pages 865-877.
    20. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.

    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:49:y:2022:i:4:p:621-631.. 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/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.