Many countries have amended legislation and introduced policies to stimulate universities to transfer their knowledge to society. The effects of these policies on scientists are relatively unexplored. We employ principal-agent theory to increase our understanding of the relationship between impact policies and scientific practice. Our methodology includes the analysis of policy documents and of data gathered in focus groups. We conclude that there is a gap between policy on the one hand and how scientists perceive it on the other. Policy documents put forward a broad notion of impact, but scientists perceive them as focusing too narrowly on commercial impacts. Scientists are further puzzled by how societal impact is evaluated and organised, and their perceptions frame their behaviour. Our policy recommendations focus on improving the interaction between intermediaries, such as universities and research councils, and scientists so as to include the latter's perspective in policy-making.

We report on the first successful high-resolution spectroscopic studies on isolated para-coumaric acid, the chromophore of the photoactive yellow protein which has become a model system for studying biological light-induced signal transduction. Employing various double-resonance multiphoton ionization techniques in combination with mass-resolved ion detection and the results of quantum chemical calculations, we identify three conformations the molecule can adopt under our experimental conditions. The vibrational activity in the excitation spectra allows us to conclude that in the Franck-Condon region accessed from the ground state S(1) is the V'(pipi*) state. Interestingly, we find considerable out-of-plane vibrational activity, indicating that the molecule adopts a nonplanar geometry in S(1). The ionization requirements show that after excitation rapid internal conversion takes place to a lower-lying npi* state. Such a state has been postulated by ab initio calculations on para-coumaric acid and derivatives, but until the present study no direct evidence had been found for its presence.

Over the past two decades, several methods have been developed to evaluate the societal impact of research. Compared to the practical development of the field, the conceptual development is relatively weak. This review article contributes to the latter by elucidating the theoretical aspects of the dominant methods for evaluating societal impact of research, in particular, their presuppositions about the relationship between scientific and societal value of research. We analyse 10 approaches to the assessment of the societal impact of research from a constructivist perspective. The methods represent different understandings of knowledge exchange, which can be understood in terms of linear, cyclical, and co-production models. In addition, the evaluation methods use a variety of concepts for the societal value of research, which suggest different relationships with scientific value. While some methods rely on a clear and explicit distinction between the two types of value, other methods, in particular Evaluative Inquiry, ASIRPA, Contribution Mapping, Public Value Mapping, and SIAMPI, consider the mechanisms for producing societal value integral to the research process. We conclude that evaluation methods must balance between demarcating societal value as a separate performance indicator for practical purposes and doing justice to the (constructivist) science studies’ findings about the integration of scientific and societal value of research. Our analytic comparison of assessment methods can assist research evaluators in the conscious and responsible selection of an approach that fits with the object under evaluation. As evaluation actively shapes knowledge production, it is important not to use oversimplified concepts of societal value.

No abstract