Universities are increasingly expected to fulfill a third mission in addition to those of research and education. Universities must demonstrate engagement with society through the application and exploitation of knowledge. As societal impact of research is uncertain, long term and always dependent on other factors, we argue here that evaluation should focus on the conditions under which societal impact is generated rather than on the impact itself. Here we focus on a specific set of those conditions: the interactions between academic researchers and societal actors. Instead of speculating about potential impacts of research, we argue that current productive interactions of researchers with societal stakeholders improve the probability that future societal impact will occur. This article supports this idea by examining in detail several, mainly retrospective examples. As productive interactions are field specific, we restrict ourselves to 'professional adhocracy fields', especially to information and communication technologies (ICT) research. We address the patterns of productive interactions that result in societal impact within this field and we discuss whether differences are observed in contrast to other fields, such as social sciences and humanities (fragmented adhocracies). We end by discussing the implications that these patterns have for societal impact assessment. Shifting the focus to interactions allows assessment of short-term knowledge transfer and other collaborative efforts with stakeholders that contribute to long-term societal impact.

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.

No abstract

Science is increasingly heterogeneous, posing new questions for research evaluation. How can we evaluate the between scientific and societal quality of research, taking into account differences between research fields and between research groups? In this paper we present the findings of two case studies in fields where societal and scholarly output of research are highly intertwined (architecture and law). We analyze the nature of the two fields in terms of research areas and specific aspects of knowledge dynamics. This results in an approach and indicators for contextual research evaluation. Websites of faculty and research groups

No abstract

Increasingly, research funders include societal impact as a criterion in evaluation procedures. The European Commission is no exception to this trend. Societal impact determines one-third of a project’s success in receiving funding from the Societal Challenges in Horizon 2020 (H2020). Yet, there are large differences in terms of science and technology performance between countries that participate in the programme. In this article, we (1) compare societal impact practices in the social sciences and humanities in high-performing countries (HPCs) and low-performing countries (LPCs) to the evaluation of societal impact in funding procedures at the European level and (2) reflect upon consequences for the competition for research funding in the European funding arena. To this end, we introduce the concept of ‘societal impact capacity’ as well as a framework to analyse it. The analysis of 60 case studies from 16 countries across Europe shows that (1) researchers from HPCs have a higher impact capacity than those from LPCs and (2) researchers from HPCs report more details about impact than those from LPCs. This suggests that researchers from HPCs are better equipped to score well on the impact criterion when applying for funding than researchers from LPCs. We conclude with policy recommendations for the organization and evaluation of societal impact.

There is wide agreement about the importance of transdisciplinary research to address complex sustainability issues. Although there is a growing body of literature about the management of transdisciplinary research programmes as well as the challenges relating to the collaboration between academic researchers and practitioners, empirical research has to date paid little attention to the challenges related to the variation of practitioners involved in these programmes. This paper presents a comparative analysis of three transdisciplinary programmes addressing climate change and sustainability and identifies factors that contribute to fruitful collaboration between heterogeneous practitioners. Contrary to what could be expected from the literature, differences between the practitioners involved have only created significant issues in one of the programmes, and this programme has developed a way to cope with this difficulty. Effective strategies to avoid and limit tensions among practitioners include a focus on bilateral collaborations, the careful selection of programme participants, and the appointment of dedicated project monitors who are responsible for social learning processes.

Understanding attitudes towards science is crucial to safeguard the future of science, the application of its results and the inclusivity of decision-making processes related to science and technology. Most studies focus on attributes of social groups to explain attitudes towards science. In this study, we aim to move the discussion forward by focusing on perceived attributes of science itself by analysing over 300 letters to the editor in two Dutch national newspapers. The authors of these letters express a large degree of trust in science as a source of societal progress, if research is conducted according to a specific set of rules. Yet, they believe that these rules are under attack. The interests of universities as organizations and individual academics as well as the involvement of industry and government in research are perceived as conflicting with these rules. We conclude with recommendations for further research and practice.