From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact

Abstract

W www.utwente.nl/cheps 'counting interactions'. We address the wider conceptual framework for describing SSH pathways to societal impact by paying attention not only to productive interactions but to the changes they mediate. Drawing on a comparative analysis of 60 examples of SSH impact, we develop a typology of SSH pathways to societal impact. We conclude by arguing the usefulness of the extended conceptual framework and propose policy measures to stimulate and support impact processes.

The Open Innovation in Science research field: a collaborative conceptualisation approach

“…Recent work on societal impact has emphasised the previously underestimated contributions of the social sciences and humanities (Muhonen, Benneworth, and Olmos-Peñuela 2020) and the need to account for not only positive, but also negative impacts of developments in science (Derrick et al 2018). For example, the creation of new markets in connection with Open Science may allow 'platform capitalists' to capture value from scientific knowledge without creating significant value for the science system (Mirowski 2018), a circumstance which highlights the importance of suitable appropriation strategies.…”

Projecting long-term armed conflict risk: an underappreciated field of inquiry?

“…A second purpose, in line with the first, is the creation of a mutual understanding between researchers and decision-makers about imaginable intersecting long-term climate risks and short-term interests. Facilitating discussions between policymakers on projections can lead to a better understanding of what information is needed from projections to develop well-informed long-term policies (Muhonen et al 2020;van Beek et al 2020). This process can also contribute to a balance between actors' shortand medium-term interests and long-term developments by connecting these (Jones et al 2017).…”

“…The research community should also aid the utilisation of new insights by policy-makers, as these conflict projections are a new development in the field. This means that both scientists and users need to go through a process of co-creation where conflict projections are improved in concerted actions, based on the needs of the users and the possibilities provided by science (Muhonen et al 2020;van Beek et al 2020). Including both qualitative and quantitative scenario insights should be combined to gain confidence, reliability and trust in these insights, and for becoming policy-relevant.…”

Impact for whom? Mapping the users of public research with lexicon-based text mining

“…Research in political science is different from research in oncology not only because their scientific foundations, methods, objects and cognitive styles are different, but also because they talk to different user groups. Muhonen et al (2020) inductively derive as many as twelve different types of impact pathways.…”