The aim of this research is to achieve a better understanding of the processes underlying knowledge transfer (KT) in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). The paper addresses: first, the extent of SSH research groups' engagement in KT and the formal KT activities used to interact with non-academic communities; and second, how the characteristics of research groups may influence engagement in various types of KT. The empirical analysis is at research group level using data derived from a questionnaire of SSH research groups conducted by the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). We find that KT activities are based on relational rather than commercial activities. The most frequent relational activities in which SSH research groups engage are consultancy and contract research, with personnel mobility a marginal activity. We find also that the characteristics of research groups (e.g. size and multidisciplinarity) and individuals (e.g. status and research impact) are associated with involvement in KT activities and that a deliberate focus on the societal impacts and relevance of the research conducted is strongly related to active engagement of research groups in all the modes of KT considered in this study. From a managerial perspective, our findings suggest that measures promoting a focus on the societal impact of research could enhance research groups' engagement in KT activities.

No abstract

In this discussion paper, we outline and reflect on some of the key challenges that influence the development and uptake of more inclusive and responsible forms of research and innovation. Taking these challenges together, we invoke Collingridge's famous dilemma of social control of technology to introduce a complementary dilemma that of 'societal alignment' in the governance of science, technology and innovation. Considerations of social alignment are scattered and overlooked among some communities in the field of science, technology and innovation policy. By starting to unpack this dilemma, we outline an agenda for further consideration of social alignment in the study of responsible research and innovation.ARTICLE HISTORY

There is a reasonably settled consensus within the innovation community that science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research is more 'useful' to societies than other kinds of research notably social sciences, humanities and arts (SSHA). Our paper questions this assumption, and we seek to empirically test whether STEM researchers behave in ways that make their research more useful than SSHA researchers. A critical reading of the discussion around SSHA supports developing a taxonomy of differences: this is tested using a database covering 1,583 researchers from the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). Results do not support that SSH researchers behave in ways that are less useful than STEM researchers, even if differences are found in the nature of their transfer practices and their research users. The assumption that STEM research is more useful than SSH research needs revision if research policy is to properly focus on research useful for society.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The analysis of how research contributes to society typically focuses on the study of those transactions that are mediated through formal legal instruments (research contracts, patent licensing and creation of companies). Research has shown, however, that informal means of technology transfer are also important. This paper explores the importance of informal collaborations and provides evidence of the extent to which informal collaborations between researchers and non-academic partners' take place informally in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). Data is obtained from two studies on knowledge exchange involving researchers working in the SSH area of the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). We show that informal collaborations not officially recorded by the organization, are much more common than formal agreements and that many collaborations stay informal overtime. We explore the causes of such prevalence of informality and discuss its policy implications.