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.
In spite of the growing literature about excellence funding in science, we know relatively little about its implications for academic research practices. This article compares organizational and epistemic effects of excellence funding across four disciplinary fields, based on in-depth case studies of four research groups in combination with twelve reference groups. In spite of the highly selective nature of excellence funding, all groups employ dedicated strategies to maximize their chances of acquiring it, which we call strategic anticipation. The groups with ample excellence funding acquire a relatively autonomous position within their organization. While the epistemic characteristics of the four fields shape how excellence funding can be used, we find that in all fields there is an increase in epistemic autonomy. However, in fields with more individual research practices a longer time horizon for grants, beyond the usual 5 years, would fit better with the research process.
In this paper we focus on the governance, in particular evaluation and monitoring, of the growing number of transdisciplinary collaborations (TDC's). Researchers and a variety of stakeholders collaborate in such TDC's, the purpose of which is to address societal challenges, like renewable energy, healthy aging or better language teaching in schools. Commonly used practices for evaluation of scientific research (accountability, rankings and benchmarking, dedicated to scientific excellence) do not fit the goals of TDC's. A bottom up or stakeholder oriented approach is better suited; one that stimulates mutual learning as well as the development of socially robust knowledge. We introduce the participatory impact pathways analysis (PIPA), as a method that suits the requirements. It has been developed in the context of development research. Two crucial features are the involvement of stakeholders from the start, and the joint development of a theory of change. This narrates what one wants to achieve and how that will be achieved. From this, stakeholders construct a logical frame that serves as a source for indicators. These indicators enable monitoring ex durante, during the TDC. We present evidence of the use of PIPA for a TDC. From this empirical evidence a number of issues with regard to evaluation, monitoring and indicators can be identified that require attention. Most prominent is the change of function of indicators. Instead of looking back and a focus on past performance, indicators look forward, in the short, intermediate and more distant future.
Leonie van DroogeMet het advies Naar een evenwichtige kwaliteitsbeoordeling van sociologisch onderzoek levert de Nederlandse Sociologische Vereniging een waardevolle bijdrage aan het debat over beoordeling van academisch onderzoek. Er is in Nederland een traditie van adviezen en rapporten over kwaliteitsbeoordeling. Kort gezegd betogen alle rapporten hetzelfde: dat het bij kwaliteit van onderzoek gaat om wetenschappelijke en maatschappelijke aspecten, en dat een zinvolle manier van beoordelen aansluit bij kenmerkende eigenschappen van het te beoordelen onderzoek. De NSV zet een belangrijke stap door als discipline gezamenlijk een visie te ontwikkelen. Eerdere adviezen waarnaar de auteurs verwijzen zijn ofwel generiek, geldend voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek in het algemeen (ERiC 2010; Van Drooge et al. 2011), ofwel gericht op het grote geheel van de sociale wetenschappen (KNAW 2013) of geesteswetenschappen (KNAW 2011;KNAW 2012). Hoe specifieker de eenheid, des te nauwkeuriger de omschrijving van eisen aan kwaliteit. Tot zover: hulde! Het advies kan echter op enkele punten scherper. Die aanscherping betreft punten die bij de uitvoering van belang zijn; ze betreffen niet de uitgangspunten van kwaliteitsbeoordeling of specifieke voorstellen voor toepassing. Het gaat om het maken van keuzes in de bijdragen die sociologie kan en wil maken en om het nemen van verantwoordelijkheid om die bijdrage te kunnen realiseren. Doel van deze reactie is om daartoe aan te zetten.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.