IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/iaqrep/313562.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Wissenschaft-Praxis-Transfer in der deutschen Sozialpolitik: Erwartungen von Forschenden und Praxisakteuren

Author

Listed:
  • Heilmann, Tom

Abstract

Mit Blick auf die deutsche Sozialpolitik wird ein verstärkter Wissenstransfer zwischen Forschung und Praxis gefordert. Damit ist die Hoffnung verknüpft, "bessere" Antworten auf zunehmend komplexe Herausforderungen der Politikgestaltung zu finden. Der vorliegende IAQ-Report widmet sich vor diesem Hintergrund der Frage, welche Transfererwartungen und -verständnisse relevante Akteure aus Sozialpolitikforschung und sozialpolitischer Praxis artikulieren. Im Ergebnis können vier idealtypische Transferverständnisse herausgearbeitet werden, die mit je unterschiedlichen Erwartungen an das Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Praxis verknüpft sind. In der Gesamtbetrachtung scheint ein plurales Verständnis von Wissenstransfer am sinnvollsten, das unterschiedliche Formate kombiniert und sich gleichzeitig deren Grenzen bewusst ist.

Suggested Citation

  • Heilmann, Tom, 2025. "Wissenschaft-Praxis-Transfer in der deutschen Sozialpolitik: Erwartungen von Forschenden und Praxisakteuren," IAQ-Report 2025-02, University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute for Work, Skills and Training (IAQ).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:iaqrep:313562
    DOI: 10.17185/duepublico/83084
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/313562/1/1919624228.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17185/duepublico/83084?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter D. Gluckman & Anne Bardsley & Matthias Kaiser, 2021. "Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Ben R Martin, 2011. "The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 247-254, September.
    3. Rottleb, Tim & Schmidt, Suntje, 2023. "Wissenstransfer als kritische Infrastrukturierung: Vier Thesen zur Gestaltung von Wissenstransfer als Zusammenspiel von Wissenschaft und gesellschaftlicher Innovationsfähigkeit," IRS Dialog 3/2023, Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space (IRS).
    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. 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.
    2. Buckle, Robert A. & Creedy, John & Ball, Ashley, 2020. "A Schumpeterian Gale: Using Longitudinal Data to Evaluate Responses to Performance-Based Research Funding Systems," Working Paper Series 9447, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.
    3. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy & Ashley Ball, 2021. "Fifteen Years of a PBRFS in New Zealand: Incentives and Outcomes," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 54(2), pages 208-230, June.
    4. Giliberto Capano & Benedetto Lepori, 2024. "Designing policies that could work: understanding the interaction between policy design spaces and organizational responses in public sector," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(1), pages 53-82, March.
    5. Degl’Innocenti, Marta & Matousek, Roman & Tzeremes, Nickolaos G., 2019. "The interconnections of academic research and universities’ “third mission”: Evidence from the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    6. Haines-Doran, Tom, 2022. "Critical accounting scholarship and social movements: The case of rail privatisation in Britain," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    7. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    8. Susana Sobral & Fronika Wit & Rita Carrilho & Dora Cabete & António Barbosa & Filipa Vala, 2024. "Navigating complexity: looking at the potential contribution of a boundary organisation in Portugal to evidence-informed policy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.
    9. Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo, 2020. "The performance of Latin American research on economics & business," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 573-590, January.
    10. Nancy Li & Markus Luczak-Roesch & Flavia Donadelli, 2023. "A computational approach to study the gap and barriers between science and policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 15-29.
    11. Arnab Bhattacharjee & Cornilius Chikwama & João Lourenço Marques, 2021. "Connections between research and policy: The case of fertility diffusion and regional demographic policy in Portugal," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 729-743, June.
    12. Heidi Peterson, 2023. "Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) or the Highway? An Alternative Road to Investigating the Value for Money of International Development Research," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 260-280, April.
    13. Yuya Kajikawa, 2022. "Reframing evidence in evidence-based policy making and role of bibliometrics: toward transdisciplinary scientometric research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5571-5585, September.
    14. Geuna, Aldo & Piolatto, Matteo, 2016. "Research assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and difficult, but probably worth it (at least for a while)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 260-271.
    15. Murray A. Rudd, 2022. "100 Important Questions about Bitcoin’s Energy Use and ESG Impacts," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, December.
    16. Reetta Muhonen & Paul Benneworth & Julia Olmos-Peñuela, 2018. "From productive interactions to impact pathways," CHEPS Working Papers 201802, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    17. Alessandro Magrini & Fabio Bartolini & Alessandra Coli & Barbara Pacini, 2019. "A structural equation model to assess the impact of agricultural research expenditure on multiple dimensions," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 2063-2080, July.
    18. Ben R. Martin, 2016. "What's Happening to Our Universities?," Working Papers wp477, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    19. Richard McManus & Karen Mumford & Cristina Sechel, 2022. "Measuring research excellence amongst economics lecturers in the UK," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 386-404, April.
    20. Haddawy, Peter & Hassan, Saeed-Ul & Asghar, Awais & Amin, Sarah, 2016. "A comprehensive examination of the relation of three citation-based journal metrics to expert judgment of journal quality," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 162-173.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:iaqrep:313562. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaqdude.html .

    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.